No community start suggestion yet.
What makes a woman permitted to her husband after marriage? The Gemara (גמרא)'s statement that blessings are required reveals fundamental disagreements between Rashi (רש"י), Tosafos (תוספות), and the Rambam (רמב"ם) about whether chuppah, berachos, or both create the heter for living together.
This shiur analyzes the complex sugya on Kesubos 7b regarding the requirement of birchas chasanim (wedding blessings) and its relationship to chuppah. The Gemara (גמרא) states that in Yehuda, they would recite birchas chasanim even at the time of erusin, raising fundamental questions about what permits a couple to live together after marriage. Rashi (רש"י)'s position creates significant difficulties in understanding the text. He explains that without berachos, the woman remains forbidden due to the prohibition of yichud with an unmarried woman. However, his commentary seems internally contradictory - sometimes indicating that only berachos are needed, other times requiring both chuppah and berachos. The shiur demonstrates how Rashi's explanations appear to conflict with the straightforward reading of the Gemara.
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.
