A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why isn't mogmar (burning spices for fragrance) permitted on Yom Tov according to the principle of metoch? The Gemara (גמרא) questions Rav Papa's position allowing chabura (cutting) on Yom Tov through metoch reasoning - if cutting is permitted beyond its primary purpose, shouldn't burning spices be equally permitted?
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya from Masechta Kesubos dealing with the principle of metoch on Yom Tov. The Gemara (גמרא) presents Rav Papa's position that making a chabura (cutting/wounding) is permitted on Yom Tov because of metoch - since cutting (havara) is permitted for the sake of ochel nefesh, it becomes permitted even not for ochel nefesh. Rav Papi challenges this by asking why mogmar (burning spices for fragrance) wouldn't similarly be permitted through metoch reasoning. The answer given is that only actions that are "shave l'chol nefesh" (applicable to all people) qualify for this extension. Mogmar is only for "mefunakim" (the refined/wealthy), while basic needs like making a chabura for a wedding are universal. The shiur explores Tosafot's interpretation that Rav Papa may have initially thought the heter was based on "ein isur etzah b'Yom Tov" rather than metoch.
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 7b
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.
