No community start suggestion yet.
Can safek ones versus safek rotzon create a case where a woman remains mutar to her husband? The shiur develops Rashi (רש"י)'s crucial distinction between mezanah berotzon (which violates cheskas tzadekes) and being talked into something (pitui), which preserves righteousness while still creating an issur. This reading resolves the Rosh's fundamental challenge about cheskas tzadekes.
The shiur analyzes a complex Gemara (גמרא) in Kesubos 9a dealing with the case of pesach (פסח) pasuach matzasi - a husband who discovers his wife was not a virgin. The core issue is whether this creates a safek safeka (double doubt) or a single safek, and the resulting halachic status. Rashi (רש"י) explains that the case assumes the woman is now a gedolah (adult), because if she were still a katanah (minor), pitui katan would be considered ones (coercion), making her permitted to her husband. Rabbi Zweig notes that Rashi adds the word "gedolah" which doesn't appear explicitly in the Gemara, but is necessary to avoid contradiction with other sugyos.
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 9a
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.
