No community start suggestion yet.
What is the melacha involved when blood is drawn during metzitzah after circumcision? Tosafot argues that drawing out blood for healing constitutes melacha she'ain tzrich l'gufah (work not needed for its essential purpose) since the intent is therapeutic, not to weaken the child. This analysis creates fundamental questions about how we define intent in Shabbos (שבת) melachos.
This shiur analyzes a complex Tosafot on Kesubos 5b dealing with the melacha of drawing blood during metzitzah (the drawing of blood after circumcision). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether this constitutes a violation of Shabbos (שבת) and under what circumstances it would be permitted. Tosafot raises the fundamental question of what melacha is being performed when blood is extracted for therapeutic purposes. The core issue revolves around the concept of melacha she'ain tzrich l'gufah - work performed without needing its essential destructive purpose. According to Tosafot, when metzitzah is performed, the person is not trying to weaken (mechalesh) the child but rather to heal him by removing dangerous blood or improving circulation. Since the intent is therapeutic rather than harmful, this would constitute melacha she'ain tzrich l'gufah, which according to Rabbi Shimon is only a rabbinic prohibition rather than biblical.
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.
