No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Tosafos (תוספות) say dam extraction is mutar in some cases but asur in others? The analysis examines contradictions between different Tosafos regarding melacha she'ein tzrich legufa, ein meskaven, and mekalkel. The resolution depends on whether we follow Rabbi Yehuda or Rabbi Shimon's positions.
This shiur analyzes the complex Tosafos (תוספות) on Kesubos 5b regarding dam mufkad pakid (blood extraction during intimacy). The discussion centers on apparent contradictions between different Tosafos that seem to present conflicting views on when such blood extraction is permitted or forbidden on Shabbos (שבת). The primary tension arises from Tosafos's treatment of melacha she'ein tzrich legufa (labor not needed for its own sake). One Tosafos suggests that according to Rabbeinu Tam, the blood extraction should be permitted as a drabanan (rabbinic prohibition) because it's melacha she'ein tzrich legufa combined with tzorech mitzvah (מצוה) (for the sake of a mitzvah). However, another Tosafos indicates that such combinations of factors (ein meskaven, mekalkel, and potentially melacha she'ein tzrich legufa) create multiple derabanan restrictions.
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 5b
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.
