A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When can we apply kol deparish meruba parish (most who separate from a group follow the majority) to people versus objects? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: for objects that truly leave their group, we use the majority of traveling items, but for people who are chozir l'nichusa (returning to their fixed place), we can only use the majority of the fixed population.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos 14b dealing with the application of the principle kol deparish meruba parish to people. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where someone sends a shliach to perform kiddushin without specifying which woman, creating uncertainty about who is married and who might be an achot isha (sister of one's wife). The central question is whether the principle of kol deparish meruba parish applies equally to people and objects. Tosfos brings a proof that people should be considered parash (separated) from their group when outside the city, just like objects. However, the Gemara in Nazir seems to contradict this, stating that people are chozir l'nichusa (they return to their dwelling) and therefore different rules apply.
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 14b
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.
