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.
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.
