No community start suggestion yet.
Why does miggo lo shichya work by borei v'shem but not by borei and borei? The shiur develops that borei v'shem functions through stronger ta'anos rather than rayos, making miggo effective even when it's not compelling proof of honesty.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of a complex Tosafos (תוספות) regarding the mechanics of miggo lo shichya in different types of claims. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Tosafos's position that according to Sumchus, even borei v'shem results in yachloqu, not borei adam, because otherwise certain kashyas in the Gemara (גמרא) would be unanswerable. The central question emerges: how can miggo lo shichya be effective by borei v'shem when the Rosh holds that such a miggo doesn't work in other contexts because mukasetes lo shichya? The shiur develops two primary approaches to resolve this difficulty. The first approach distinguishes between different types of muchzak status. When someone is muchzak with borei v'shem, they don't have a full chazakas ownership but merely a din of 'leave it where it is' (al tistayeg mi'safek). This weakened muchzak status allows miggo to be effective for hotza'ah, since miggo can overcome inertia but cannot overcome genuine ownership rights.
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 12b
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.
