No community start suggestion yet.
What does mitoch sheutar habur letzorach mean on Yom Tov? The shiur explores whether Yom Tov melachos are inherently permitted (like the Ramban (רמב"ן)) or prohibited with a heter of ochel nefesh. This fundamental chakira reshapes how we understand the entire framework of Yom Tov observance.
This shiur analyzes Kesubos 7a's discussion of the mitoch principle on Yom Tov, examining the fundamental nature of melacha on Yom Tov. Rabbi Zweig presents multiple approaches from Rishonim regarding whether Yom Tov melachos are inherently permitted or prohibited with specific heterim. The shiur begins with the Gemara (גמרא)'s statement about mitoch sheutar habur letzorach (since slaughter is permitted for need, it's also permitted not for need), raising questions about the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position. The Rambam holds that habur (slaughter) is only permitted as a tolada of shechita, but this creates difficulties with the mitoch principle since the Rambam generally doesn't accept mitoch for habur.
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 7a
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.
