A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does the exemption from mourning during shivas yemei hamishteh stem from a shev v'al ta'aseh (passive restraint) or complete nullification of the aveilus obligation? The Ran distinguishes between prohibitions like shaving (shev v'al ta'aseh) versus active joy (kum v'aseh), with practical ramifications for whether one can engage in simcha activities.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute between the Ran and other Rishonim regarding the nature of the exemption from mourning (aveilus) during the seven days of wedding festivities (shivas yemei hamishteh). The central question is whether this exemption operates as a shev v'al ta'aseh (passive prohibition) or as a complete nullification (akira) of the mourning obligation. The Ran's position distinguishes between different aspects of mourning laws. According to his approach, refraining from activities like shaving operates as a shev v'al ta'aseh - one is not required to actively demonstrate mourning through these restraints during the wedding period. However, actively engaging in joyful activities (devarim shel simcha) would constitute a kum v'aseh - a positive declaration that one is not in mourning, which remains prohibited.
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.
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.
