No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) require yichud for chuppah when the Gemara (גמרא) discusses chuppah without yichud (moser av l'shluchei ha'baal)? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction between two types of chuppah: kinyan (acquisition) and relationship (ishto k'gufo). The Rambam's regular chuppah creates ishto gemurah through relationship, while chuppah without yichud creates only kinyan-based marriage.
The shiur addresses two fundamental questions about the laws of chuppah and nissuin. The first kasha comes from the Nesivos: the Rambam (רמב"ם) requires yichud for chuppah, yet the Gemara (גמרא) discusses cases of moser av l'shluchei ha'baal (the father delivering the bride to the groom's agents) where there is chuppah without yichud, since she remains arusah and cannot seclude herself with the husband's agents. The second kasha involves an apparent contradiction in the Ran's approach. In our sugya, the Ran says that even according to the Rambam, chuppah without a kesubah works bediavad since violating this requirement is only an issur derabbanan. However, in Kiddushin, the Ran explains that biah can serve as chuppah after erusin specifically because there's no issur when done l'shem nissuin - not because issur derabbanan works bediavad.
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.
