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.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
