No community start suggestion yet.
Why doesn't making birchas chasanim automatically create nisuin? The Rambam (רמב"ם) teaches that berachos alone don't accomplish nisuin - only knis u'chuppah does. The shiur analyzes Rashi (רש"י)'s approach that distinguishes between the issur yichud and issur kala belo bracha.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of a fundamental question in hilchos kiddushin: what is the relationship between birchas chasanim (wedding blessings) and the accomplishment of nisuin (marriage)? The discussion centers on Rambam (רמב"ם) Hilchos Ishus Perek 10 Halacha (הלכה) 6, which states that if one is me'ares a woman and makes birchas chasanim without being miyuchad with her in her house, she remains an arusah because birchas chasanim don't create nisuin - only knis u'chuppah accomplishes this. Rabbi Zweig explores several fundamental questions arising from this Rambam. First, where does the Rambam derive that berachos could theoretically create nisuin that this needs to be negated? Second, why does the Rambam rule that by a niddah who underwent chuppah, 'ein chozer mevarech' (we don't repeat the blessings) - what does this accomplish if the nisuin wasn't valid? The shiur examines whether this indicates that b'dieved such berachos have some validity.
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.
