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.
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.
