A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How can Tosfos say sefeik sfeika overcomes chazakas mamon when Mamon Ein Hochin Achar Rov? The shiur builds on the Pnei Yehoshua's insight that ketubahs are different - the holder is mochzik, not fully owning. This distinction transforms the question from creating obligation into determining possession.
The shiur addresses a fundamental contradiction in Tosfos regarding sefeik sfeika (double doubt) against chazakas mamon (monetary presumptions). The Pnei Yehoshua asks how Tosfos can say sefeik sfeika can extract money when the principle is Mamon Ein Hochin Achar Rov (we don't follow majority in monetary matters). The Gemara (גמרא) on 9b shows conflicting positions - on amud beis, Tosfos says sefeik sfeika overcomes chezkas mamon, while on amud alef, chazaka overcomes sefeik sfeika. The shiur develops the Pnei Yehoshua's resolution that ketubahs operate differently because 'Omed Ligvos Ki Gavui Domi' - documents ready for collection are like already collected. This creates a unique status where the woman with the ketubah is considered mochzik (holding) the money, not merely claiming it. The Mordechai supports this by showing that rov works by ketubahs in cases where the woman's childbearing status affects her ketubah value.
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.
