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.
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.
