No community start suggestion yet.
Is seducing a minor considered rape (oines) or consensual (rotzon)? The shiur explores a fundamental machlokes between Rashi (רש"י)/Tosafos (תוספות) (who hold pitui katana is oines) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) (who holds it's rotzon). This disagreement affects whether there's a sfeik sfeika in cases of uncertain seduction.
The shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos 9a regarding the halachic status of pitui katana (seducing a minor). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where a married woman claims her husband found her not to be a virgin, and there's uncertainty about when the relationship occurred and whether she was a minor or adult at the time. Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) hold that pitui katana (seducing a minor) has the status of oines (rape), meaning the minor cannot give meaningful consent. This creates a sfeik sfeika: maybe she was raped (oines), or maybe she consented but was a minor when it happened (which is also considered oines). According to this view, she would be permitted to her husband due to the double doubt.
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.
