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.
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.
