No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Tosfos require a chezkas heter when discussing the case of an eishes kohen who may not be baki in pesach (פסח) pasuah? The analysis develops different approaches between Tosfos, Tosfos Yeshanim, and the Maharsha on when sfeik sfeika applies for collecting a kesubah and the mechanics of determining who is the muchzak in monetary disputes.
This shiur provides a detailed analysis of Tosfos on Kesubos 9b regarding the requirement of chezkas heter in cases involving an eishes kohen whose husband may not be expert (baki) in distinguishing pesach (פסח) pasuah. The central question is why Tosfos requires a chezkas heter to permit the woman to her husband when there's already a doubt about his expertise. The shiur explores several approaches to understanding Tosfos. One possibility is that Tosfos holds there is a rov (majority) that the husband is indeed baki. If so, without a chezkas heter, the miyut (minority) of ein baki wouldn't be sufficient to create a proper sfeik sfeika. The chezkas heter combines with the miyut ein baki to create an effective safek against the rov baki.
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.
