A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What exactly must a woman testify to be permitted to marry a kohen after questionable relations? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: only when there's re'u she-nivlah or re'u muberes must she provide testimony with two supporting factors. For mere re'u nistera, she owes no explanation at all—even silence permits her to marry a kohen.
The shiur begins by examining the Vilna Gaon's question on the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s formulation regarding a woman's believability (ne'emanus) in cases of questionable intimate relations. The Rambam rules according to Rav Asi's reading of the Mishna, discussing re'u she-nivlah and re'u muberes, yet we pasken like Ze'iri. The Gaon asks why the Rambam follows Rav Asi when halachically we rule like Ze'iri, and why he doesn't address the case of re'u nistera. Rabbi Zweig distinguishes between two fundamental questions: what a woman is believed to say versus why she is believed. Today's focus is on the scope of her believability—what testimony she must provide. The shiur analyzes the core dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) regarding the basis of a woman's believability according to the Chachamim versus Rabbi Yehoshua.
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.
