No community start suggestion yet.
Does pirish mean separation due to an issur bia, or a chiyuv kevurah? The shiur contrasts Rashi (רש"י) (who learns pirish as obligation to bury, allowing a second bia if burial is delayed) with Tosafos (תוספות) (who learns it as an issur bia). The analysis includes dam besulim complications and the relative severity of aninus versus aveilus.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Kesubos 4a, focusing on the machlokes between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) regarding the nature of pirish in the context of boel bilas mitzvah (מצוה). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where someone dies during the shiva yemei mishteh (seven days of wedding celebration), and the question arises whether the couple must separate after the initial bia. Rashi's position is that pirish is not an issur bia (prohibition of relations) but rather a chiyuv kevurah (obligation to bury the deceased). According to Rashi, the separation is necessitated by halon ha-sames (the prohibition of leaving a deceased unburied), and the couple must prioritize burial. Rashi holds that if burial were somehow delayed (such as on Yom Tov when burial is impossible), a second bia would be permitted because there is no inherent issur in the relationship itself.
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 4a
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.
