A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What's the halacha (הלכה) when marital relations might cause bleeding that constitutes chabura on Shabbos (שבת)? The Gemara (גמרא) explores whether this falls under davar she'eino miskaven, examining the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, and analyzing when hana'as atzmo creates a heter versus when kavana makes it forbidden.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of a complex Gemara (גמרא) in Kesubos dealing with the permissibility of marital relations on Shabbos (שבת) when there's a possibility of causing bleeding that would constitute the melacha of chabura (making a wound). The Gemara presents two versions of the discussion, with the central question being whether this scenario falls under the category of davar she'eino miskaven (unintentional action) or if the person is considered mechaven (intentional) for the bleeding. Rabbi Zweig carefully analyzes the Maharshal's difficulties with understanding the flow of the Gemara, particularly regarding why the Gemara seems to suggest that according to Rabbi Yehuda it would be mutar (permitted) when we know from a braisa that it's asur (forbidden). The shiur explains that the Gemara is not trying to permit the action according to Rabbi Yehuda, but rather proving that the case cannot be classified as davar she'eino miskaven.
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.
