No community start suggestion yet.
Can a wedding proceed when the groom's father dies after food preparation begins? The Gemara (גמרא) examines when the obligation to bury immediately (lo salin) conflicts with wedding arrangements. The analysis reveals complex interactions between biblical mourning requirements and rabbinic wedding celebrations.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya from Kesubos 3b dealing with the halachic dilemma when a groom's father dies after wedding preparations have begun. The Gemara (גמרא) presents the case where food has been prepared and guests invited, creating a conflict between the obligation to bury the deceased immediately (lo salin hames) and the desire not to waste the wedding preparations. The discussion begins with examining various conditions that affect whether the wedding should proceed or be postponed. Rabbi Zweig analyzes the distinction between whether water was added to the meat (nosan mayim al gabei basar) and different types of locations (city vs. village), which affects the ability to sell leftover food. The entire framework seems to depend on economic considerations - if one has sufficient money to afford new preparations, the restrictions may not apply.
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
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.
