No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Tosafos (תוספות) require pirush (separation) if dvarim shebetzina lo noig (private matters don't apply)? The shiur analyzes the dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos on whether the heter here involves delaying kevura or permitting relations during aninus. Tosafos seems to hold there's an issur during aninus itself, creating a stronger chiddush than Rashi's approach.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of the machlokes between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) regarding the case of a choson whose relative dies on his wedding day. The Gemara (גמרא) permits him to be boel beilas mitzvah (מצוה) before burying the deceased, but the meforshim disagree on the underlying reasoning. Rashi's position is that the primary heter involves delaying the kevura (burial). According to Rashi, there's normally a chiyuv to bury immediately (halanas hameisim), and every second of delay constitutes a bitul asei. The heter here allows postponing the kevura to avoid financial loss from the wedding preparations. Rashi learns that during aninus itself, there's no inherent issur on chuppah or biah - the only problem is the delay in burial.
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.
