No community start suggestion yet.
Why did the Chachamim institute Wednesday as the standard wedding day when people were already marrying on optimal days? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of higiyas zman—when husbands become obligated in spousal support. The resolution reveals that the takana protects against premature financial obligations and ensures proper wedding preparations.
This shiur analyzes a complex passage in Kesubos 2a dealing with the timing of weddings and the husband's financial obligations. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a fundamental question: if people were already getting married on appropriate days (before Beis Din sessions), why did the Chachamim need to institute a formal takana requiring Wednesday weddings? Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot offer different approaches to understanding the Gemara's question "mah zman" (what time). According to Rashi, the question concerns why a takana was necessary when people were already marrying on Wednesdays due to practical considerations like nice wedding preparations. Tosafot understands the question as relating to the specific timing requirements.
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 2a
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.
