No community start suggestion yet.
How does safek safeka work when one safek is created by smoch miut l'chazakah? Tosafot disagrees whether this constitutes a real safek safeka misapach, with major implications for when a wife can collect her kesuva against competing chazakos.
The shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Tosafot's commentary on Kesubos 9b, focusing on a complex case involving safek safeka (double doubt) regarding a wife's kesuva payment. The central issue revolves around whether a husband is expert in pesach (פסח) pasuach (intact hymen) and the halachic implications when this expertise is in doubt. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a case where there's uncertainty about the husband's expertise, and even if he is expert, there's a further doubt about whether relations were forced or consensual. Tosafot raises several fundamental questions about this safek safeka structure. The Pnei Yehoshua asks why we don't apply the principle that 'mamon ain hochana aharov' - why can a safek safeka overcome the normal rule that money stays where it is.
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 9b
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.
