A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) rule differently for dam basilum versus aveilus regarding delaying a wedding? The shiur analyzes Tosafos (תוספות) and multiple Rishonim on the fundamental question of whether aveilus d'oraisa can be uprooted by the concern for wasting wedding food, examining the machlokes between the Rosh and Ran.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Kesubos 3b-4a, focusing on the complex interplay between aveilus and wedding obligations. The primary discussion centers on Tosafos (תוספות)'s explanation regarding dam basilum versus aveilus, questioning why different standards apply to each case regarding sleeping arrangements and ritual purity concerns. The shiur extensively examines the positions of major Rishonim on whether aveilus d'oraisa can be overridden. The Rosh maintains that a d'oraisa obligation of aveilus cannot be uprooted by Chachamim, leading to his conclusion that aveilus must be d'rabbanan in this context. He offers two approaches: either the simchas chasunah itself is d'oraisa (citing Rabbeinu Meir Levi), or both aveilus and simcha are d'rabbanan, with aveilus being more chamur but yielding to avoid interrupting the continuity (ritzuf) of shivas y'mei mishteh.
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 3b-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.
