A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) require a shiur (minimum amount) for mefareik on animals but not for human chaburah on Shabbos (שבת)? The shiur develops two distinct categories of mefareik: for animals/growing things, one must need and use the liquid extracted; for humans, the melacha is accomplished through separation itself.
The shiur addresses fundamental questions about the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s understanding of mefareik (separating liquids from solids) as a toldah of dosh (threshing). The Rambam's position conflicts with Rashi (רש"י), who views chaburah as a coloring issue rather than separation. Several difficulties emerge with the Rambam's approach: First, the Gemara (גמרא) states that if blood is mufkad pakid (pooled like in a reservoir), there's no issur chaburah, yet the Rambam considers milking a cow as mefareik despite Rashi saying the milk is mufkad pakid. Second, pressing olives or grapes involves mefareik, yet the Gemara in Pesachim 33 describes their liquids as mufkad pakid. Third, the Rambam requires a shiur k'grogeres for mefareik, but dam besulim requires no shiur. Fourth, the Gemara's principle of "mitoch she-huchtar l'tzorech ochel nefesh" shouldn't apply to chaburah if it's mefareik, since dosh isn't permitted for food preparation on Yom Tov.
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.
