No community start suggestion yet.
What kind of birur is needed to determine a sotah's status when there's doubt? The Rosh explores whether resolving sotah doubts requires mammon-level proof or can use standard chazakah principles. He develops a fundamental distinction between determining facts versus determining halakhic status.
This shiur analyzes a complex piece in the Rosh regarding what type of evidence is needed to resolve doubts about a sotah's status. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether a woman who claims she was violated under duress (tachtav be-ones) should be believed, and the Rosh initially argues she cannot be believed for multiple reasons: bari v'shema la bari adif (a definite claim doesn't override a definite counter-claim), and there is no chazakah to support her claim. However, the Rosh then reconsiders, suggesting that perhaps when we're not trying to extract money (motzi mamon) but rather determining issur status, different rules apply. In such cases, a bari (her testimony) might be sufficient, especially when supported by chazakah. The Rosh identifies several potential chazakot: cheskas heter (presumption of permissibility), cheskas haguf (physical presumption), and cheskas tzedakas (presumption of righteousness).
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.
