A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does our Gemara (גמרא) permit wounding (chabura) for biah while daf 22b forbids extinguishing a candle for non-food purposes? Tosafot offers two approaches: either biah mitzvah (מצוה) permits even machshir actions, or chabura is actual ochel nefesh melacha while extinguishing is only machshir that requires ochel nefesh justification.
The shiur analyzes a complex Tosafot on Kesubos 7a addressing an apparent contradiction between two Talmudic passages. Our sugya permits chabura (wounding) for biah on Yom Tov, while the Gemara (גמרא) on daf 22b forbids extinguishing a candle (kibui ha-ner) for non-food purposes. Tosafot presents two resolutions to this seeming inconsistency. The first teretz suggests that biah constitutes a mitzvah (מצוה), and for mitzvah purposes, even machshir melachos become permitted. This approach implies that extinguishing a candle is normally forbidden as machshir, but would be allowed for the mitzvah of biah. However, this creates a difficulty since the Gemara on 22b explicitly states that according to Rabbi Yehuda, machshir is permitted, yet still forbids extinguishing the candle there.
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 7a
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.
