No community start suggestion yet.
What exactly do birchas chasanim accomplish at erusin, and why are they permitted if an arusah remains forbidden to her husband? The shiur develops the tension between Rashi (רש"י)'s position that the bracha removes the issur yichud and the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s view that she retains arusah status. This leads to fundamental questions about whether chuppah is d'oraisa or d'rabanan.
This shiur analyzes Gemara (גמרא) Kesubos 8a regarding birchas chasanim (wedding blessings) and their relationship to the prohibition of yichud with an arusah (betrothed woman). The primary tension emerges from comparing different authorities' understanding of what these blessings accomplish. Rashi (רש"י)'s position presents the first approach: he maintains that birchas chasanim at erusin remove the rabbinic prohibition of yichud with an arusah. According to Rashi, an arusah has the same yichud restrictions as a single woman (panuyah), and these restrictions can only be lifted through either chuppah or the blessing. The Gemara's discussion of Yehuda, where they said the blessing because 'she was designated for him (mis'yachad imah),' supports this view that the blessing itself has halachic efficacy.
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 8a
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.
