No community start suggestion yet.
What constitutes sufficient witness testimony for biya according to Rav Assi's requirement of re'u shenivala? The shiur develops a major chiddush that seeing yichud in a chorva (ruins) - a place designated for znus - qualifies as re'u shenivala. This establishes three levels of yichud with different halachic consequences.
The shiur analyzes a complex Gemara (גמרא) in Kesubos 13b dealing with the dispute between Ze'iri and Rav Assi regarding what level of evidence is needed to disqualify a woman's credibility. Ze'iri holds that mere yichud (seclusion) renders her word inadmissible as lashon hakiah (euphemistic language), while Rav Assi requires actual re'u shenivala (witnesses who saw that she was violated). The Gemara's challenge comes from a Braisa that mentions both "nistarot" and "davra" - seemingly two separate cases. Initially, this appears to contradict Rav Assi's position since both cases involve only yichud, not actual witnessing of biya. The Gemara resolves this by explaining "o katani" - these are indeed two distinct cases, but both involve re'u shenivala.
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 13b
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.
