No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Tosfos ask whether ein mesakaven should be chayav in chabura like mesasek? The shiur analyzes Tosfos' complex question about unintentional actions and proposes that chabura requires some tikkun even according to Rabbi Shimon, making intention more relevant than in pure kilkul cases.
The shiur presents a detailed analysis of a challenging Tosfos in Kesubos 5b-6a regarding the halachic status of ein mesakaven (unintentional action) versus mesasek (mistaken action) in the context of chabura (making a wound). The primary difficulty addressed is understanding Tosfos' question about why ein mesakaven shouldn't be chayav in chabura, given that mesasek is chayav according to the conclusion that follows Rabbi Shimon's position that davar she'eino miskaven is mutar. Rabbi Zweig explains that Tosfos appears to know that ein mesakaven is generally patur throughout kol haTorah kulah, making the question seemingly obvious. The analysis explores whether Tosfos is suggesting that in certain aspects, ein mesakaven might actually be worse than mesasek. In mesasek, a person believes they are doing something completely permissible, while in ein mesakaven, there is at least awareness of the possibility of performing a prohibited action.
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-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.
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.
