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.
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.
