A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) differentiate between "yemei simcha" and "yemei mishta" in the laws of mourning during sheva brachos? The shiur builds on textual analysis showing the Rambam distinguishes between a full wedding celebration (which creates yom simcha status like yom tov) and mere marriage with a party afterward. This distinction explains when aveilus is suspended versus merely modified.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental distinction in the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s Hilchos Avel regarding the interaction between wedding celebrations and mourning laws. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the Gemara (גמרא)'s ruling that when a close relative of the chasan or kallah dies on the wedding day, they proceed with the marriage and sheva brachos, then observe shiva afterward. He contrasts this with cases involving other relatives or when food can be sold, where the funeral takes precedence. The main focus centers on resolving apparent contradictions in the Rambam's language. In some halachos, the Rambam calls the seven-day period "yemei simcha" and compares it to "regel" (festival), while in others he uses "yemei mishta" and compares it to "Shabbos (שבת)." Rabbi Zweig demonstrates that this linguistic precision reflects a crucial halachic distinction.
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 4a
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.
