No community start suggestion yet.
When does mourning become obligatory if someone dies during the seven days of wedding celebration? The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position creates difficulties with existing Talmudic approaches. A novel understanding emerges: unlike the Ran who sees conflicting obligations, the Rambam holds that mourning simply isn't applicable during active joy - it's not that obligations conflict, but that one prevents the other from ever taking effect.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute in Jewish law regarding the interaction between mourning (aveilus) and wedding celebrations (sheva brachos). The Gemara (גמרא) in Kesubos discusses cases where someone dies during the seven days of wedding festivities, creating tension between the obligation to mourn and the obligation to celebrate. Rabbi Zweig examines the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position, which differs significantly from other Rishonim. The Rambam rules that if someone dies during sheva brachos, the couple continues the seven days of celebration and only afterward begins the seven days of mourning. This creates several difficulties when compared to approaches of the Ran, Rosh, and other authorities.
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 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.
