No community start suggestion yet.
Can chuppah be performed when the bride is a niddah? The Ran argues that even though yichud is normally forbidden with a niddah, bedieved the chuppah works because the Rambam (רמב"ם) holds chuppah equals yichud. This creates tension with other Rishonim who seem to say kinyan through forbidden relations doesn't work.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos 2a regarding whether chuppah can be performed when the bride is a niddah. The Gemara (גמרא) states that if the bride became a niddah before consummation, the husband doesn't have to provide her with mezonos since he cannot marry her due to the prohibition. The Ran explains that according to the Rambam (רמב"ם), chuppah is defined as yichud - bringing the wife into the husband's domain and being secluded with her. Since there's normally an issur yichud before the first relations between a couple, this creates a problem when the bride is a niddah. However, the Ran argues that bedieved (after the fact), if they went through with the chuppah despite the niddah status, it works and creates a valid marriage.
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.
