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.
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.
