No community start suggestion yet.
How does sfeik sfeika work when there's rov that he's boki in pesach (פסח) pasuach? Tosfos holds that even with rov boki, if she has a chezkas heter, we say smoch miyut l'chazakah which weakens the rov to function halachically as a safek. This creates a unique sfeik sfeika where the first 'safek' is really a rov that can't be used to assur.
This shiur addresses profound questions raised by the Gedolei HaChachmim including the Kivengir, Pnei Yehoshua, and Marsha on a complex Gemara (גמרא) in Kesubos 9b dealing with pesach (פסח) pasuach (torn hymen) testimony. The central issue revolves around the mechanics of sfeik sfeika when there's a rov (majority) that men are boki (expert) in pesach pasuach versus the woman's chezkas heter. The Marsha asks a fundamental question: why does Tosfos invoke chezkas heter rather than simply applying sfeik sfeika? He suggests this indicates Tosfos is discussing cases beyond the Gemara's scope, such as a woman who is both prusmei bas gimel (definitely not a virgin) and eishes kohen (where even ones would be forbidden). The shiur challenges this reading as forcing Tosfos to discuss unrelated scenarios.
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.
