No community start suggestion yet.
How does the principle of davar she'ein miskavein apply when actions have unintended consequences? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s two approaches to whether inadvertent actions are permitted, examining the interplay between intent, mekalkel (destructive acts), and issur d'rabanan.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Kesubos 5a, focusing on the principle of davar she'ein miskavein (unintended consequences) and its halachic implications. The Gemara (גמרא) presents two distinct approaches (lashonos) to understanding when actions with unintended consequences are permitted. The first lashon deals with a case where someone intends one result (dam) but an unintended consequence (pesach (פסח)/opening) occurs. The Gemara explores whether this falls under the dispute between Rav Yehuda (who holds davar she'ein miskavein is assur) and Rav Shimon (who holds it's mutar). The analysis includes whether the unintended action constitutes a mekalkel (destructive act) which might be permitted even according to the stringent view.
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 5a
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.
