No community start suggestion yet.
When does marriage become a public contract requiring ten people? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction between Hilchos Ishus and Hilchos Brachos regarding Sheva Brachos. Under the chuppah, brachos are part of creating the nisuin itself, while the week-long brachos are merely publicizing an already-established relationship.
This shiur analyzes the core disagreement between Rabbeinu Hai Gaon and the Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding when marriage transitions from a private contract to a public one. The Rambam holds that the mitzvah (מצוה) of kiddushin is not simply to be mekadesh a woman, but rather that intimacy between husband and wife should occur within the context of kiddushin and ketubah. This means kiddushin represents a commitment to permanent marriage (nisuin), not just a temporary engagement. Rabbeinu Hai Gaon argues that since kiddushin involves committing to nisuin, the public aspect of marriage begins at erusin, requiring ten people for Birchas Erusin. The Rambam disagrees, holding that the public contract only begins when the couple actually lives together at nisuin. Rabbi Shmuel HaNagid challenges Rabbeinu Hai Gaon's position with two questions: where is this requirement sourced, and if ten people are needed for erusin, why does the Gemara (גמרא) only mention requiring two witnesses?
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 7b
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.
