A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a chasan observe fourteen days of aveilus when his father dies during sheva brachos? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction between two separate halachas in aveilus: the obligation to feel tzar (bitterness) and the obligation to act out aveilus practices. This framework explains the differences between Shabbos (שבת) and Yom Tov regarding dvarim shebetzina.
The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s ruling that when a chasan's father dies during sheva yemei hamishteh, he first completes his seven days of celebration (observing dvarim shebetzina) and then observes seven days of aveilus. Rabbi Zweig questions why this creates fourteen days of aveilus when normally dvarim shebetzina should fulfill the aveilus obligation, as evidenced by the fact that when someone dies erev Yom Tov, the regel is mevatel shiva precisely because dvarim shebetzina was observed on Shabbos (שבת). The shiur establishes a foundational principle that there are two distinct halachas in aveilus. The first is the obligation to feel aveilus - the bitterness and emotional response to loss (achris ki yom mar). The second is the obligation to act out aveilus - sitting on the floor, not taking haircuts, and other practices that demonstrate kavod hameis (honoring the deceased). These two obligations can operate independently.
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-4a
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.
