No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Tosfos say newlyweds don't have to wait until after Shabbos (שבת) for their first intimacy? The shiur examines Tosfos's position that there's no obligation to delay, then analyzes the deeper question of whether biah on Shabbos constitutes a biblical or rabbinic prohibition.
This shiur analyzes a complex Tosfos on Kesubos 5b dealing with a case where a couple gets married on Wednesday night but cannot consummate the marriage until Friday night due to various circumstances. The main discussion begins with Tosfos's position that they are not required (lo chayavim) to wait beyond Shabbos (שבת), despite potential ritual complications. Rabbi Zweig examines the fundamental disagreement between Rav Yehuda and Rav Shimon regarding whether causing a wound (chabura) on Shabbos constitutes a biblical violation. The Gemara (גמרא) attempts to determine whether the prohibition stems from the groom being mechaven (intentionally causing) the bleeding, or whether it falls under the category of davar she'ein miskaven (unintentional consequences). This distinction is crucial because Rav Yehuda holds that even unintentional violations are forbidden, while Rav Shimon permits them.
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.
