No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Rashi (רש"י) give different tests for psik reisha on different daf pages? The shiur develops a yesod that when an action itself is forbidden, lo ichpas lei doesn't help. But when kavanah creates the issur (melechet machshevet), then lo ichpas lei prevents psik reisha liability.
The shiur addresses a fundamental contradiction in Rashi (רש"י)'s approach to psik reisha between Kesubos 5b (daf kuf gimel) and 85b (daf ayin hei). On daf kuf gimel, Rashi holds that lo ichpas lei (not caring about the consequence) exempts from psik reisha, while on daf ayin hei, he requires lo nichleh (actively not wanting it). Rabbi Zweig resolves this by establishing that the nature of the forbidden act determines the psik reisha standard. When the action itself has no inherent Shabbos (שבת) definition and only becomes forbidden through one's intention (like pulling something from the ground), then lo ichpas lei suffices. The kavanah defines the melacha - if you intend ketzira (harvesting), the incidental binyan (building/improving the ground) isn't considered psik reisha. However, when the action inherently constitutes a forbidden melacha (like squeezing a chilazon which is inherently netilas neshama), then even without intention for that specific result, lo ichpas lei doesn't help - you need lo nichleh. The Maharal asks a penetrating question on the Rosh and Ran: they first distinguish between Shabbos (where lo ichpas lei works) and kol haTorah kulah (where it doesn't), but then cite proofs from kol haTorah kulah showing the opposite. Rabbi Zweig explains this isn't a contradiction but reflects a deeper principle: the distinction isn't geographic (Shabbos vs. other areas) but conceptual (melechet machshevet vs. ma'aseh issur). Some prohibitions in kol haTorah kulah also depend on intention - like shatnez, where wearing as a mannequin isn't ma'aseh levusha and thus permitted. The Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of pouring wine on the mizbeach altar illustrates this principle. Initially, the Gemara treats extinguishing the altar fire as a ma'aseh issur, making lo ichpas lei irrelevant. But the Gemara's conclusion suggests that the issur of kibui (extinguishing) requires intention - you must want to extinguish for it to be forbidden. When done carelessly (using large drops instead of small ones), Rashi explains this as laziness, not intention to extinguish, thus avoiding psik reisha liability. This demonstrates that even within kol haTorah kulah, some issurim function like Shabbos when they require specific kavanah.
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.
