No community start suggestion yet.
Why does an almanah (widow) marrying require different sheva brachos than a besulah? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s distinction between bracha and simcha, developing the approach that there are two separate takanos - one from Moshe for shivas yemei hamishtah and one from Chachamim for personal simcha obligations.
The shiur begins by examining the Gemara (גמרא)'s statement that an almanah (widow) 'ein tzerichah bracha' (doesn't require a bracha), contrasting this with the case of Boaz who clearly had brachos. Rabbi Zweig raises a fundamental question about the Gemara's kashya: if kol lo bracha asur l'ba'al k'niddah applies universally to chuppah, why should there be any distinction between different types of marriages regarding the basic requirement for brachos under the chuppah? The analysis moves to the Gemara's answer that 'ein tzerichah bracha kol zman av yomecha tzerichah' - examining what 'yomecha' means. Rabbi Zweig demonstrates from the Rishonim that this refers to the first day of mishta dikka (the wedding feast), not the chuppah ceremony itself. This leads to a crucial distinction between two separate dinim: the bracha requirement under the chuppah versus the sheva brachos during the days of celebration.
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 7a
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.
