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.
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.
