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.
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.
