A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) need two cases to establish that a woman is believed about who violated her? The shiur develops that the Rambam (רמב"ם) reads the Gemara as distinguishing between asking the question when she's pregnant versus after birth. When she's still pregnant, the mother's chazaka helps the unborn child since they're halachically one entity.
The shiur analyzes a complex section of Kesubos 12b focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s presentation of two cases regarding a woman's testimony about her violation. The main question addressed is why the Gemara needs two separate cases - one regarding the woman herself and another regarding her child - when seemingly one case should suffice. Rabbi Zweig presents two approaches from the Rishonim to resolve contradictions in the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s rulings. The Rav Magid explains that when dealing with kehunah, a woman can marry anyone else even if she's forbidden to a kohen, so two witnesses are required. However, regarding the child's status, since the child would be completely disqualified, we believe even one witness according to Rabbi Gamliel. The Shmeitsa offers a different answer, distinguishing between cases that are d'oraisa versus d'rabbanan in nature.
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 12b
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.
