No community start suggestion yet.
Can a niddah undergo chuppah? The Ran views chuppah as a kinyan requiring actual yichud, making chuppas niddah forbidden. The Rambam (רמב"ם) sees chuppah as advancing the relationship rather than a kinyan - it's lo gamru (incomplete) until she goes to mikvah but valid as a maasrh nisuin.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute between the Ran and Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding the nature of chuppah, particularly when the bride is a niddah. The Ran maintains that chuppah requires hachnasas reshus but not yichud, allowing chuppah with a niddah since it can't be completed anyway, so there's no obligation of mezonos. The Rambam holds that chuppah requires yichud aruya l'biah (proper for intimacy), making it forbidden to perform chuppah with a niddah. The Ran raises several kashas on the Rambam: How can there be almanah min hanisuin if yichud is required? How can the Kohen Gadol make kiddushin and nisuin on Yom Kippur? How can there be moser ha'av l'shluchei haba as a nisuin without yichud? The Beis Yaakov offers a novel chiddush distinguishing between katan and gadol - by a father, hachnasas reshus suffices, but by a gedolah, yichud is required.
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 2a
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.
