No community start suggestion yet.
How can a husband be mekane his wife not to seclude herself with a non-Jew if Rabbeinu Tam holds bias akum doesn't create issur? The shiur develops an achshavah framework: forced relations with a goy are like bias behemah (no gilui arayos), but when done willingly, she's machshiv the goy as a Jewish husband replacement.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental contradiction in Rabbeinu Tam's position on bias akum (relations with a non-Jew). According to the Rivam's understanding, Rabbeinu Tam holds that bias akum is like bias behemah - completely permitted to the husband with no din of yeharag v'al ya'avor. However, this creates a major difficulty: the Gemara (גמרא) and Rambam (רמב"ם) clearly state that a husband can be mekane (warn) his wife not to seclude herself with a non-Jew (mekane al yedei akum). How can this kinui be valid if there's no underlying issur d'oraita? The Rambam's position in Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah suggests there's no yeharag v'al ya'avor for bias akum, yet in Hilchos Sotah he rules that kinui al yedei akum is valid. This contradiction is compounded by the Rambam's principle that kinui only applies when there's an actual issur - as he states regarding a katan or behemah, 'ein osrin oso alav' (they don't prohibit her to him).
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 3b
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.
