A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How can the Rambam (רמב"ם) define chuppah as yichud haroy lebiya when this creates multiple contradictions? The shiur develops that the Rambam recognizes two distinct types of chuppah - kinyan (through biya after kiddushin) and relationship (through yichud). This resolves the Ran's kashas while explaining chuppas nidah and the practical halachos of mezones.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental debate about the nature of chuppah, focusing on the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that chuppah is yichud haroy lebiya and the Ran's strong objections. The Ran raises several kashas: How can there be chuppah without yichud when the Gemara (גמרא) discusses cases where a woman enters chuppah but there's no yichud? How does this work for psulos like an almana to a kohen gadol where yichud haroy lebiya is impossible? What about cases like moser av leshluchei aba where the woman isn't even with her husband? And how does this apply on Yom Kippur when there's no yichud possible? Rabbi Zweig develops an innovative approach to resolve these difficulties. The Rambam distinguishes between two entirely different types of chuppah. One type is a kinyan - specifically biya after kiddushin, which the Rambam explicitly calls a kinyan that makes her "ishto lechol davar." The second type is yichud, which is not a kinyan at all but rather the creation of a relationship.
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 2b
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.
