No community start suggestion yet.
When women are coerced into relations with non-Jews, why does the Gemara (גמרא) say it's permissible rather than yeharog v'al ya'avor? Rabbeinu Tam argues it's not considered adultery (gilui arayos) when with a non-Jew. The Rivav challenges this with three proofs that such women remain forbidden to their husbands.
The shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos 3b dealing with the halachic status of Jewish women coerced into relations with non-Jews. The Gemara (גמרא) states that women should be told it's permissible rather than die, but Tosafot asks how this can be, given that adultery is one of the three sins requiring yeharog v'al ya'avor (martyrdom rather than transgression). Tosafot answers that living with a non-Jewish man is not a capital offense, citing the pasuk about Egyptian practices. However, this language is problematic - the issue isn't punishment but whether one must choose death over sin. The shiur explores whether Tosafot means there's no obligation of yeharog v'al ya'avor because it's not considered gilui arayos (adultery) at all.
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 3b
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.
