No community start suggestion yet.
Can a chosson observe shivas yemei hamishnah when his father dies before the wedding? The Shach distinguishes between kum v'aseh and shev v'al ta'aseh, permitting only passive mitzvah (מצוה) obligations to be waived. The shiur challenges this with the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that aveilus is entirely removed through shev v'al ta'aseh.
This shiur analyzes the complex halachic mechanisms behind the Gemara (גמרא)'s ruling that allows a chosson to observe shivas yemei hamishnah even when aveilus begins on the first day after his father's death. The central question revolves around understanding what it means for Chazal to be "oiker" (uproot) the mitzvah (מצוה) of aveilus. Rabbi Zweig first presents his own approach: the mitzvah of aveilus is fundamentally about giving kavod (honor) to the deceased, as Rashi (רש"י) explains regarding sukkah and as appears from the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s understanding. When Chazal permit shivas yemei hamishnah, they completely remove the mitzvah obligation of kavod hameis through shev v'al ta'aseh - telling the person he is not required to perform the mitzvah. Once the mitzvah obligation is removed, all the restrictive actions of aveilus (not taking haircuts, not bathing, not wearing leather shoes) become permissible.
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.
