No community start suggestion yet.
Does bari v'shema allow the wife to collect her kesuba when claiming anoos? The shiur develops the concept of migu of taina me'ula beyosa - where even though both claims are equally weak, the fact that one could have made a more respectable claim proves truthfulness. This novel form of migu works even when the alternative taina wouldn't win the case.
This shiur explores the complex sugya of Kesubos 12b dealing with a woman claiming her full kesuba payment when her husband disputes whether she was a besulah at marriage. The central dispute involves whether bari v'shema (certain claim vs. uncertain claim) allows her to collect, or if we follow the principle that bari v'shema lav bari yaduv (a certain claimant doesn't overcome an uncertain one when extracting money from its current possessor). The Gemara (גמרא) presents a fundamental machloket between Rav Yehuda/Rav Huna who hold bari yaduv (the certain claimant wins) versus Rav Nachman/Rav Yochanan who hold patur because of uki mamona b'chezkas mareh (leave the money with its current possessor). Rabbi Zweig analyzes why the woman nevertheless collects according to some opinions.
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.
