No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Rabbi Yehoshua challenge Rabbi Gamliel's ruling about marriage when the majority are unfit? The shiur analyzes the fundamental dispute about whether probability (rov) creates certainty or merely permits action. This leads to a deeper understanding of why yuchsin requires absolute certainty, not just statistical likelihood.
The shiur analyzes a complex sugya from Kesubos 13b dealing with the laws of marriage and lineage verification. The primary discussion centers around a dispute between Rabbi Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua regarding when a woman can marry a kohen despite uncertainty about her status. Rabbi Gamliel permits marriage even when there's a majority of unfit people (rov pasul), while Rabbi Yehoshua objects based on a comparison to the laws of shevuya (captive women). The shiur examines Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation that Rabbi Yehoshua's challenge focuses specifically on the case where the majority are unfit, questioning how Rabbi Gamliel can permit marriage in such circumstances. A fundamental principle emerges from the analysis: there are two different applications of rov (majority). According to one approach, rov creates a halachic permission to act based on probability, but doesn't establish absolute certainty. This distinction becomes crucial in marriage laws (ma'alei u'yuchsin), where absolute certainty is required to prevent the creation of chalal offspring. The shiur explores the Rosh's position that while rov permits eating potentially kosher food, it doesn't create a vadai (certain) status. This explains why probability might be sufficient for dietary laws but insufficient for lineage matters, where even statistical likelihood cannot override the need for certainty. The discussion extends to the related sugya in Kidushin, where Avishol appears to disagree with Rabbi Gamliel about cases involving rov pasul. Tosfos attempts to reconcile the apparent contradiction between the sugyot, but the shiur presents an alternative approach following the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s understanding. According to this reading, the distinction lies between cases where the woman is pregnant (muberet) versus cases involving a child already born, with different standards applying to each situation. The analysis concludes with an examination of chazakah (presumptive status) and its role in these determinations, particularly how the mother's chazakah can or cannot extend to establish the status of her child depending on the circumstances.
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.
