No community start suggestion yet.
When can you create a halachic reality using chazakah when there are conflicting chazakahs? The shiur develops a yesod from Tosafos (תוספות) that if something's entire purpose is only to overcome another chazakah (like para adumah or mikvah), you cannot create it with chazakah since that would be circular reasoning.
The shiur begins by analyzing the difficult position of Kiveger's kashya regarding tatlareisa - when you have conflicting chazakahs (cheskas haguf vs cheskas heter lakohen vs harei beulah lefanecha), why doesn't the principle of two against one apply? The Pnei Yeshuah's answer that cheskas haguf knocks off the other two chazakahs is set aside to focus on understanding when chazakah can create versus extend a halachic reality. The main analysis centers on Tosafos (תוספות)'s discussion of para adumah. The Gemara (גמרא) derives that we follow rov (majority) from para adumah - since most animals aren't treifah, we assume the para adumah is kosher. Tosafos asks: why not derive this from chazakah instead? A para adumah must be two years old, and since treifah animals cannot live beyond one year, we know it was born wholesome. Tosafos answers: 'Adraba, hen mitamei achas koso' - you have a conflicting chezkas tumah.
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 9a
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.
