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.
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.
