No community start suggestion yet.
What does 'two rovs' mean when someone emerges from a group? The shiur develops the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s innovative approach that the second group loses its original ischazek isur status. This creates a qualitatively different heter - not statistical probability but complete absence of halachic doubt.
This shiur analyzes Kesubos 14b's discussion of the principle of 'two rovs' (trei rubay) in determining yichus, focusing on the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s unique understanding. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses cases where a woman was violated either in a city or on a highway, and the halachic implications depend on whether we have one or two majorities to rely upon. The shiur begins by examining the basic Tosefta's two approaches: one understanding the case as involving a shema (doubt) requiring two rovs universally, and another seeing it as a bari (certainty) case where Rav requires two rovs as a stringency. The Rambam rules according to the second approach - that for a bari case, one needs two rovs l'chatchilah.
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 14b
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.
