No community start suggestion yet.
What determines if extracting blood violates Sabbath prohibitions? The Gemara (גמרא) distinguishes between dam mufkad pakid (pooled blood) and dam chibur mechaber (connected blood). The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that chabalah is a toldah of mefareik creates difficulties with this distinction and challenges from other Talmudic sources.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute in Kesubos 5b regarding the nature of blood and its relationship to Sabbath prohibitions. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a machlokes about whether certain blood is considered dam mufkad pakid (pooled/deposited blood) or dam chibur mechaber (connected blood). According to the Gemara, if blood is mufkad pakid and one needs the blood, it is permitted; if it's chibur mechaber and one needs the blood, it is forbidden. Rashi (רש"י) explains that chibur mechaber is prohibited due to the concern of sakanah (danger), while Tosafos (תוספות) attributes the prohibition to netilat neshamah (taking of life). According to Tosafos, the distinction makes more sense: chibur mechaber is part of the circulatory system and thus subject to netilat neshamah, while mufkad pakid is merely pooled blood not intrinsically connected to the body's life force.
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
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.
