No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a husband who dies before returning need to have made a formal claim of oines to validate his conditional get? Rashi (רש"י) argues that gittin aren't about ability but about intent - you must demonstrate you want the get invalidated. This creates a fundamental dispute with the Baalei Tosafos (תוספות) about whether ones automatically cancels the get or requires explicit declaration.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos 2b dealing with the halacha (הלכה) of "ein ones begitin" (there is no exemption of oines by gittin) according to Rashi (רש"י)'s understanding, contrasted with the position of the Aguda and other Rishonim. The discussion centers on cases where a husband gives a conditional get stating it will take effect if he doesn't return within twelve months, and then dies during that period. Rabbi Zweig begins by outlining several difficulties in Rashi's interpretation: the apparent contradiction between the Gemara (גמרא)'s assumption that oines exists in gittin versus the conclusion that ein ones begitin; Rashi's seeming inconsistency between the beginning and end of the sugya regarding whether a woman becomes forbidden to kohanim; and questions about why the Gemara didn't immediately apply ein ones begitin.
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 2b
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.
