No community start suggestion yet.
When a man gives a conditional get saying 'if I don't return in 30 days' but becomes an oines (unable to return), is the get valid? The Gemara (גמרא) explores whether yesh oines beget (oines invalidates gittin) applies differently when the husband clearly wants to return versus when his intentions are unknown.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos 2b-3a dealing with conditional gittin and the principle of oines (circumstances beyond one's control). The case involves a man who gives his wife a conditional get stating 'if I don't come back within thirty days, this is your get,' but then becomes unable to return due to circumstances like a broken bridge. The fundamental question is whether such oines invalidates the get or whether it takes effect as planned. The Gemara (גמרא) presents the dispute between the position that yesh oines beget (oines prevents a get from taking effect) versus ein oines beget (oines does not affect the get's validity). Shmuel rules 'lo shmei mesia' - this doesn't count as 'coming,' meaning the get is valid despite the oines.
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-3a
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.
