A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) say this case is only chad safeik when seemingly there's a sfeik sfeika d'asur (safek tachas, and even if lav tachas, safek goy)? The shiur analyzes the fundamental machloket between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot about whether chazaka can be mevarer (decisively resolve) a safek versus merely preserving status quo when facing conflicting chazakot.
This advanced shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos 9a dealing with the halachic status of a woman whose virginity is in question for kehuna purposes. The Gemara (גמרא)'s kasha is that it should be a sfeik sfeika (double doubt) permitting her, while the teretz is that it's only chad safeik (single doubt), making her forbidden. Rashi (רש"י) explains the Gemara straightforwardly: the kasha assumed sfeik sfeika would permit her, but the answer reveals it's actually chad safeik, which creates an issur mi-safeik. According to Rashi, she's asur because of the safeik itself - a safek deraisa lechumra.
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.
