A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What determines when a captured woman is believed to say she remained kosher? The shiur contrasts the approach viewing this as standard witness testimony (eidus) versus testimony from direct knowledge (bori v'shema). This distinction affects whether the principle applies to monetary cases as well.
This shiur analyzes Kesubos 13b, focusing on the fundamental machloket between Rabban Gamaliel and the Chachamim regarding when a captured woman (shevuya) is believed when she testifies about her own status. The Gemara (גמרא) presents several related cases where women testify about their personal status, including cases of captivity and seclusion (yichud). Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation that according to Rabban Gamaliel, even in cases of yichud, the woman is believed when she says 'ish kashur nivlati' (I was intimate with a kosher man). However, later sources like the Ran seem to disagree with this extension. This creates a fundamental question about the scope and nature of Rabban Gamaliel's ruling.
Looking for the full summary?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Kesubos 13b
Looking for the full transcript?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Dedicate a Shiur in Gemara
L'ilui nishmas a loved one. In honor of a simcha or yahrzeit. As a zechus for a refuah sheleimah. Your dedication helps carry Rabbi Zweig's Torah to learners around the world.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
