A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why do different marriage combinations require different numbers of days for sheva brachos? The Gemara (גמרא) presents contradictory statements about whether an almanah needs brachos at all. Rabbi Zweig explores whether there are two separate halachos — one bracha as part of simcha celebrations, and another bracha as a mater requirement for the marriage itself.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos 7ab dealing with the halachos of sheva brachos for different marriage combinations. The Gemara (גמרא) presents what appears to be contradictory statements from Rav Huna: first stating that both a besulah and almanah require brachos, then saying an almanah doesn't require brachos at all. Rabbi Zweig examines how the Gemara resolves this by distinguishing between different types of marriages: a bachur marrying a besulah requires seven days, while an alman marrying an almanah requires only one day. The shiur delves into the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s formulation in Hilchos Ishus, noting that he refers to a 'beulah' rather than 'almanah', following Tosafos (תוספות)'s understanding that the case involves a beulah who is treated like an almanah. A major focus is the Gemara's distinction between 'bracha' and 'simcha' - some cases have equal days for both, while others differ (like alman marrying almanah having one day bracha but three days simcha, or bachur marrying almanah having seven days bracha but only three days simcha). Rabbi Zweig proposes that there may be two separate halachos at play: brachos that are part of the celebration (simcha), and brachos that are required to permit the marriage relationship (mater). This would explain why an almanah 'doesn't need brachos' in the celebratory sense, but still needs the mater bracha as learned from the case of Boaz and Ruth. The shiur examines various Rishonim including the Ran and Ritva, and addresses the practical question of why someone would make sheva brachos on days when there's no celebration requirement. Rabbi Zweig also discusses the textual variants in different manuscripts and how they affect the understanding of the sugya.
Kesubos 7ab
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.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
