No community start suggestion yet.
When death occurs before a wedding, do you proceed with the wedding immediately or postpone it? The shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute between the Bahag (always proceed with wedding) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) (distinguish between relatives). The Rosh challenges both positions with sharp questions about necessity and timing.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos 3b-4a regarding the proper sequence of wedding and mourning obligations when a death occurs just before a scheduled wedding. The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that when the father of the groom dies and the wedding feast cannot be saved, the couple proceeds with the wedding followed by sheva brachos, and only then observes mourning. However, when other relatives die or when the food can be sold, the simple reading suggests postponing the wedding until after mourning. The shiur reveals a fundamental dispute among Rishonim about interpreting these cases. The Bahag, Rif, and others hold that in ALL cases where relatives die, the couple proceeds with the wedding immediately - they perform the chuppah and kiddushin first, then observe mourning, followed by sheva brachos. This creates a striking departure from the normal sequence where sheva brachos immediately follow the wedding.
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-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.
