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.
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.
