No community start suggestion yet.
Why do the brachos work in Yehuda if the couple can't live together until the second chuppah? Rashi (רש"י) holds chuppas erusin with brachos permits cohabitation immediately. Tosafot argues the brachos only apply to non-chuppah relations, creating fundamental disagreements about when sheva brachos are required.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental machlokes between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot regarding birchas chasanim (wedding blessings) and the principle of 'kala b'lo bracha asura l'ba'ala k'niddah' (a bride without blessings is forbidden to her husband like a niddah). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses the custom in Yehuda where couples made birchas erusin (engagement blessings) but then required a second chuppah later. Rashi's position is that in Yehuda, they performed a complete chuppas erusin with yichud in the father's house accompanied by sheva brachos. This chuppah, though not the final chuppas nisuin, was sufficient to permit the couple to live together immediately. According to Rashi, there are two types of chuppah: chuppas erusin (which permits cohabitation through yichud and brachos) and chuppas nisuin (which creates the full kinyan of bringing her into his house). The principle of kala b'lo bracha means that both chuppah and bracha are required - without both elements, relations remain forbidden.
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 7b
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.
