A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is it prohibited to perform biya rishona on Friday night? The Gemara (גמרא) analyzes whether the prohibition stems from davar she'eino miskaven (unintentional melacha) making chabura, or because one is actually mechaven (intentional). This distinction determines whether the halacha (הלכה) follows Rabbi Yehuda or Rabbi Shimon.
The shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Kesubos 5b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion about the prohibition of biya rishona (first marital relations) on Friday night. The central question revolves around understanding the precise reason for this prohibition and its halachic implications. The Gemara presents two approaches (leshonos) to explain why biya rishona might be prohibited on Shabbos (שבת). The first approach suggests that if one is mechaven (intentionally focused) on the Pesach (פסח), there's no problem, but if mechaven for the dam (blood), it could be prohibited according to Rabbi Yehuda while permitted according to Rabbi Shimon. The second approach holds that dam chabura mechaber (blood from a wound connects), making intention for blood problematic.
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 5b
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.
