A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What is the melacha of mefarek - taking liquid out of its source? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction between squeezing liquid out (where you need the liquid) versus slicing and letting it flow (where you may not need it). This framework resolves several difficulties in the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position on when one is liable for extracting blood or other liquids on Shabbos (שבת).
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of the Talmudic discussion regarding the melacha of mefarek (extracting/separating) on Shabbos (שבת), focusing particularly on the extraction of blood and other liquids. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the Gemara (גמרא)'s requirement that one must need the extracted liquid (dam) to be liable, and explores three possible approaches in understanding Tosafot's position: that it's melacha she'ein tzricha l'gufa, that it's mekalkel, or that it's not the melacha at all. The analysis then turns to significant difficulties with the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s approach. The Rambam holds that one is only liable for mefarek when one needs the extracted substance, otherwise it constitutes mekalkel (destructive activity). However, this creates several problems: First, regarding shechita (ritual slaughter), one should be liable for mefarek in addition to taking the animal's life, since shechita constitutes a constructive act. Second, the principle of mitoch (that which is permitted for necessity is also permitted when not for necessity) on Yom Tov should permit mefarek when not needed, yet this contradicts the Rambam's position. Third, there are contradictions regarding when liquids are considered mufkad u'pakid (deposited and ready to be removed) versus chibur mechaber (intrinsically connected).
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 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.
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.
