A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) explore whether a groom getting married Friday night intends the bleeding (dam) or if it's merely an unintended consequence (davar she'eino miskaven)? The shiur analyzes the dispute between Rav Yehuda and Rav Shimon about whether wedding timing restrictions stem from intentional violation or apply even to unintended consequences. This determines whether couples can marry Friday night according to different halachic approaches.
This shiur examines a complex sugya in Kesubos 5b dealing with the permissibility of getting married on Friday night, focusing on the underlying halachic principles of intent (kavanah) versus unintended consequence (davar she'eino miskaven). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether a groom who marries Friday night and causes bleeding during the first marital relations is considered to have intentionally caused the bleeding (dam) or whether it's an unintended consequence of the marriage act. Rabbi Zweig addresses several major difficulties raised by the Rishonim. The Maharsha asks a fundamental question: if the Gemara is trying to determine the halacha (הלכה) according to Rav Yehuda versus Rav Shimon regarding davar she'eino miskaven, why does the entire discussion seem to focus only on Rav Yehuda's position? The Maharsha suggests this indicates the Gemara already knows Rav Yehuda's view but is trying to understand his reasoning.
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 5b
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.
