No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Tosafos (תוספות) say one needs berachah for biyah rather than yichud? The shiur analyzes three difficulties in Tosafos and four kashas on Rashi (רש"י)'s position that kala beloy berachah falls under the issur of pnuyah.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Kesubos 7b, focusing on the fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) regarding the nature of the prohibition of kala beloy berachah (a bride without blessings). The discussion centers on whether the required berachah is needed to permit yichud (seclusion) or biyah (marital relations). The shiur presents three major difficulties with Tosafos's position. First, if one performs biyah with shem chuppah (intent for chuppah), why would that eliminate the need for berachos when the regular din requires both chuppah and berachah? Second, if chuppah requires edim (witnesses) and one acts with shem chuppah but without edim, this would still constitute kala beloy berachah, making the distinction meaningless. Third, Tosafos appears to disagree fundamentally with Rashi about whether the core prohibition concerns yichud or biyah.
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 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.
