No community start suggestion yet.
When a husband claims his wife was not a virgin but she says she was raped after their engagement, who is believed? The shiur develops how this dispute depends on presumptions about when the violation occurred and explores why she remains permitted to her husband according to both opinions.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute in Kesubos 11a between Rabbi Gamaliel and Rabbi Yehoshua regarding a woman's credibility when she claims to have been raped. The case involves a husband who claims his wife was not a virgin, and she responds that she was raped after their engagement (erusin). Rabbi Gamaliel believes her and she retains her full kesubah, while Rabbi Yehoshua does not believe her and reduces her kesubah payment. The central question the shiur addresses is why the Mishna states that according to Rabbi Yehoshua, we assume the violation occurred before the engagement ("harezu b'chezkas she'nivlah lif'tachos"). Rabbi Zweig questions why this legal presumption is necessary when Rabbi Yehoshua could simply say she is not believed ("einah ne'emenes").
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 11a
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.
