No community start suggestion yet.
Why can't we resolve safek tumah with chazakah when an eishes kohein may have been mezanah? The shiur analyzes Tosafos (תוספות)' sophisticated distinction between ownership-based chazakahs (which work even by safek tumah) versus standard chazakas tahara (which don't work).
This advanced Gemara (גמרא) shiur on Kesubos 9a focuses on a fundamental question regarding the application of chazakah in cases of safek tumah. The discussion centers on the case of an eishes kohein who may have been mezanah, creating both an issue of zaynah (prohibited relations) and tumah (ritual impurity). The shiur begins by examining Tosafos (תוספות)' kushya: why doesn't the chezkas chet labayla (presumption that she belongs to her husband) protect the woman from being removed from her marriage based on uncertain evidence? Tosafos distinguishes between different types of chazakah - while standard chazakas tahara cannot resolve safek tumah, a chazakah of ownership (ba'alus) can work even in cases of safek tumah because it's a monetary-type presumption rather than a purity presumption.
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 9a
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.
