A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How do we understand the principle of bari v'shema when a husband claims certainty while his wife admits uncertainty about her status? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction between being certain someone is lying versus being certain about the facts themselves, showing how different Rishonim read this sugya's approach to chazakos and credibility.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Kesubos 12b, focusing on the fundamental principle of bari v'shema (certain vs. uncertain claims) and its application in marriage law disputes. The discussion centers on a case where a woman claims "meorastani nanasti" (I was betrothed and married) while her husband disputes this, creating questions about burden of proof and credibility. The shiur begins by examining the Gemara's statement "ukim mamona b'chezkas moreh" and contrasts this with the principle of "amotzu chaver al avarayit." Rabbi Zweig demonstrates how these represent different approaches to understanding why bari v'shema results in "lav bari yadei" - why certainty doesn't automatically prevail over uncertainty.
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 12b
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.
