A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can statistical probability (rov) establish legal reality when a child of unknown origin (tinok mushlach) is found? The shiur develops the yesod that rov cannot change essential identity - a Jew remains a Jew regardless of demographics. This distinction between factual determination and behavioral permission resolves the tension between rov and chezkas mamon.
This shiur analyzes Kesubos 13a's discussion of tinok mushlach (a foundling child of unknown origin) and the application of rov (majority status) in determining legal obligations. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a case where there's uncertainty whether the child is Jewish or non-Jewish based on the local demographic majority, with implications for monetary obligations in damage cases. Rabbi Zweig frames the fundamental question: Does rov create a legal determination (psak) about the child's identity, or does it merely provide guidance for how we may act? The Tosafos (תוספות) and Rambam (רמב"ם) seem to indicate that when there's rov Yisrael, one must pay full damages, but this creates a difficulty with the principle of "ein hochan mamon achar rov" (we don't extract money based on majority alone when there's a chezkas mamon).
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 13a
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.
