No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Tosfos hold that sfeik sfeika cannot overcome chazaka in some cases but can in others? The shiur develops two fundamental approaches to sfeik sfeika: either it creates "no safek at all" when combining two facts is required for issur, or it works through "two matirim" that must be able to coexist independently.
The Gemara (גמרא) on Kesubos 9b discusses a complex case involving the validity of a woman's marriage and her entitlement to her kesuba. The central tension revolves around when sfeik sfeika (double doubt) can overcome chazaka (presumptive status), with Tosfos appearing to take contradictory positions on different parts of the page. The shiur begins by examining Tosfos's position that with a sfeik sfeika of safek baki/safek eino baki (doubt whether the witness knows what he's talking about), combined with safek ones/safek ratzon (doubt whether relations were forced or consensual), the woman should still be forbidden to her husband. However, Tosfos Yeshanim objects that this is not a proper sfeik sfeika misapach (overlapping double doubt) because one cannot start with safek ones/safek ratzon without first establishing that relations occurred.
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.
