No community start suggestion yet.
How does the principle "chazakas eim mahani lebas" work when we don't know who the father is? The shiur develops a chiddush that chalal status passes through the mother, not directly from father to child. This resolves why the mother's chazaka can help the daughter despite our uncertainty about paternity.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos 13b regarding the principle of "chazakas eim mahani lebas" (the chazaka of the mother benefits the daughter). Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Rav Kiveger's approach to understanding why the Mishna mentions "nosenu lemamzer" rather than simply "goy," which would seem to present a stronger case. Rav Kiveger explains that this teaches the chiddush that even with rov kosher, Rabbi Yehoshua still considers her pasul. The core difficulty emerges: if we have a safek regarding who the father is - potentially a mamzer, chalal, or kosher person - how can the mother's chazaka help determine the daughter's status? The mother's chazaka can only tell us that we lack sufficient evidence to disqualify her, but it cannot positively identify who the father was. This creates a fundamental problem in understanding how "chazakas eim mahani lebas" functions.
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 13b
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.
