No community start suggestion yet.
Why would one need sheva brachos when being mekadesh a woman through biya, which seems like the most legitimate case? The shiur analyzes three approaches: Rashi (רש"י) holds both chuppah and bracha are needed to permit biya, the Rambam (רמב"ם) views bracha as part of the chuppah itself, while Tosafos (תוספות) distinguishes between biya l'shem chuppah (permitted without bracha) and subsequent intimate relations (requiring bracha).
This shiur examines Kesubos 7b's discussion of birchas chasanim (wedding blessings) in Yehuda, focusing on a fundamental question: if someone lives with a woman l'shem chuppah (for the purpose of marriage), why would Tosafos (תוספות) say no bracha is needed, when this seems like the most legitimate case requiring blessings? The analysis reveals three distinct approaches among the Rishonim. Rashi (רש"י)'s position is that the issur (prohibition) applies to yichud itself with an unmarried woman, and kala belo bracha means one needs two things to permit biya: chuppah and bracha. According to Rashi, both are necessary matirim (permitting factors) - the chuppah and the bracha together permit even the first biya.
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 7b
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.
