No community start suggestion yet.
When does a mother's chazakah extend to help establish her child's status? The shiur analyzes the machlokes between Rav Elazar and Rav Yochanan regarding whether a mother's presumption of kashrus assists in determining her child's legitimacy, exploring the distinction between safek mamzer (which is only d'rabbanan) and definitive halachic status.
This shiur provides a detailed analysis of a complex sugya in Kesubos 13b concerning the machlokes between Rav Elazar and Rav Yochanan regarding chezkas eim (a mother's presumptive status) and its application to her child. The central question revolves around when a mother's chazakah of being kosher extends to benefit her child's halachic status. Rav Elazar holds that chezkas eim does not help the child - the mother has a chazakah but the child does not. Rav Yochanan maintains that even when the child lacks an independent chazakah, the mother's testimony is still believed regarding the child. The Gemara (גמרא) explores what appears to be a contradiction: if we follow Rav Yochanan's position that "ma da machshava machshava b'bita" (what she thinks, she thinks regarding her daughter), how can there be cases where the child is considered a shtuki (of questionable lineage)?
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.
