No community start suggestion yet.
When are we obligated to investigate (mevar) a doubt rather than rely on halachic presumptions? The Rashba and Trumas HaDeshen debate this in cases of safek safeka. The shiur explores whether a visible problem (re'ayah) creates an obligation to investigate, even when statistical probabilities would permit the item.
This shiur examines the fundamental question of when Jewish law requires active investigation (bedikah) rather than relying on halachic presumptions like rov (majority) or safek safeka (double doubt). The discussion centers on a dispute between the Rashba, who holds there is an obligation to investigate in cases of safek safeka, and the Trumas HaDeshen, who disagrees. The Noda B'Yehuda attempts to resolve this by distinguishing cases where there is a chezkas issur (presumption of prohibition) from those with chezkas heter (presumption of permission). Rabbi Zweig develops a novel approach through analyzing Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary. He suggests that the obligation to investigate applies differently depending on whether the prohibited action can be delayed. For example, with food that could spoil, eating today versus tomorrow represents the same essential use, so one should wait and investigate first. However, with clothing or living arrangements, each day's use is distinct and irreplaceable - today's wearing cannot be done tomorrow, today's living cannot be postponed.
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 2a
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.
