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.
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.
