No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a bachur who marries an almanah have only three days of simcha but seven days of sheva brachos? The Rambam (רמב"ם) establishes two separate halachos: Takanas Moshe requires seven days of mishta (celebration) for the groom, while Takanas Chachamim gives the bride a right to three or seven days of simcha (undivided attention) depending on her status.
This shiur addresses fundamental contradictions in the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s rulings about wedding celebrations for different marriage combinations. In Hilchos Ishus, the Rambam states that a bachur who marries an almanah has only three days of simcha, yet in Hilchos Brachos, he rules that such a couple makes sheva brachos for seven days. The Rishonim, particularly the Ran, ask how one can make brachos when there is no obligation of mishta. Rabbi Zweig resolves this by distinguishing between two entirely separate halachos. First, there is Takanas Moshe Rabbeinu establishing shivas yemei hamishta - a seven-day celebration obligation that applies to every groom regardless of circumstances. This is the groom's personal halacha (הלכה) to celebrate, similar to the seven-day mourning period for the deceased. Second, there is Takanas Chachamim giving Bnos Yisrael a right to the groom's undivided attention during simcha - this varies based on the bride's status (seven days for a besulah, three days for a be'ulah).
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 7a-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.
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.
