No community start suggestion yet.
When is a mother believed about her child's lineage, particularly regarding Kohen status? The shiur analyzes the dispute between Rav Elazar and Rav Yochanan about maternal testimony. Rabbi Zweig resolves apparent contradictions by distinguishing between d'oraisa and d'rabbanan prohibitions and clarifies that 'shtuki' here means excluded from Kohen status, not pasul for marriage.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of a complex sugya in Kesubos 13b dealing with the halachic status of a child of uncertain paternity (vlad shtuki) and when a mother's testimony is believed regarding lineage. The discussion centers on a fundamental dispute between Rav Elazar and Rav Yochanan about the credibility of maternal testimony concerning her child's status. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation and identifies several difficulties. According to Rashi, the case involves a woman claiming her child's father is a Kohen, making the child eligible for Kohen status. However, Rav Elazar holds that while a mother is believed regarding herself (due to her chazakah), she is not believed regarding her daughter when it comes to prohibitions that are d'oraita in nature, such as a bas challal marrying a Kohen.
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 13b
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.
