A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why didn't the chachamim revoke their takana requiring Wednesday weddings when the government decreed that brides would be violated before their husbands? The shiur argues that when a takana doesn't cause the underlying problem but merely provides an opportunity for existing taavah, revoking it won't solve the danger but only removes rabbinic authority over marriage.
The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a takanas chachamim requiring weddings on Wednesday (Yom Revi'i), but notes that lo mitchu bo chachamim - they left the takana in place but didn't stringently enforce it due to sakana. The Gemara explains two possible decrees: either besulah nisus tehareg (virgin brides would be killed) or besulah nisus tibol hegemon tchila (virgin brides would first be violated by the hegemon). The fundamental difficulty Rabbi Zweig addresses is why the chachamim wouldn't simply revoke their takana when it led to such terrible consequences. If they maintained the takana for beautiful weddings or to avoid men having to go to beis din for claims against their wives, how could they allow brides to be violated just to preserve these benefits?
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 3b
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.
