No community start suggestion yet.
Why isn't psik reisha d'lo nichle considered ein hamachaven rather than melacha she'ain tzrich legufa? The shiur analyzes Rav Kivagar's complex kashe that questions this fundamental distinction. Different Rishonim disagree whether mafis morsah is melacha she'ain tzrich legufa or ein hamachaven, revealing deep conceptual differences.
The shiur opens with an analysis of a complex passage in Tosafot dealing with psik reisha d'lo nichle (unintended inevitable consequence where one doesn't want the result). Rabbi Zweig examines Rav Kivagar's fundamental kashe: why should psik reisha d'lo nichle be classified as melacha she'ain tzrich legufa (work not needed for its own sake) when it seems more like ein hamachaven (lacking intention)? The Kesef Mishneh's approach is presented, distinguishing between psik reisha and melacha she'ain tzrich legufa based on intention levels. By psik reisha, one has no intention for the melacha at all - it just happens b'heichrech (inevitably). By melacha she'ain tzrich legufa, one intends the action but not its purpose as defined in the Mishkan. This creates a hierarchy where melacha she'ain tzrich legufa involves more kavanah than psik reisha.
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.
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.
