A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Tosafot call squeezing a rag "psik reisha lo nichle" if the person doesn't want the liquid? The shiur develops a fundamental yesod: one action with two results can be called ein mechaven when you intend the action but not the melacha accomplishment. This differs from melacha she'ain tzrich l'gufa where you intend the melacha but for the wrong purpose.
The shiur analyzes a complex Tosafot on Kesubos 6a regarding the issur of squeezing a rag on Shabbos (שבת). Rabbeinu Tam argues it cannot be assur because of libun (cleaning) since we don't make gezeiros on beshar mashkin (meat and liquids), and it cannot be mefarek (squeezing) because it's holech l'ibud (going to waste). However, Tosafot calls this a case of psik reisha lo nichle (inevitable unintended consequence). Rav Kivager challenges Tosafot's position with two fundamental questions: First, if the person doesn't want the liquid that comes out, how can this be called psik reisha at all? Psik reisha means you're doing the melacha but don't want it - but if you don't want the liquid, you haven't done the melacha of mefarek at all. Second, psik reisha lo nichle cannot be better than melacha she'ain tzrich l'gufa, and according to Rabbi Yehuda (whom Rav apparently follows), melacha she'ain tzrich l'gufa is chayav.
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 6a
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.
