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.
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.
