A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) classify chabura as mefarek when the Gemara (גמרא)'s logic on mitoch doesn't work? The shiur examines multiple contradictions between the Rambam's understanding of mefarek and the Gemara's reasoning. Key issues include the lack of heter letzorech kol nefesh for mefarek, the mifkad peket problem with cholev, and whether one truly 'needs' the blood in argue maris.
This shiur conducts an intensive analysis of several contradictions between the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s understanding of the melacha of mefarek and the Gemara (גמרא)'s reasoning in Kesubos 6a. The central focus is examining why the Rambam's classification creates fundamental problems with the Gemara's argumentation. The primary kashya comes from the Pnei Yeshua: if the Rambam holds that chabura is classified as mefarek (rather than netilas neshama as Rashi (רש"י) holds), then the Gemara's argument of "mitoch shehutra letzorech kol nefesh, hutra shelo letzorech kol nefesh" becomes impossible. The Gemara argues that since shechita (which involves taking blood) is permitted when necessary for preserving life, making a wound should also be permitted when not necessary. However, according to the Rambam, shechita is netilas neshama, not mefarek, so there is no precedent for mefarek being permitted letzorech kol nefesh.
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.
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.
