No community start suggestion yet.
What is the melacha when blood flows from a bris milah? Tosfos challenges Rashi (רש"י)'s view that it's tzoveia (dyeing), arguing instead for netilas neshama (taking a soul). The discussion reveals fundamental questions about psik reisha and whether certain melachos require specific intent.
The shiur analyzes the Talmudic debate regarding the nature of the melacha involved when blood flows during bris milah. Rashi (רש"י) maintains that the prohibition is tzoveia (dyeing), as the blood colors the cloth or surrounding area. Tosfos challenges this position, arguing that the melacha should be classified as netilas neshama (taking a soul) since the act involves removing life force from the person. Tosfos develops his argument by distinguishing between different types of blood removal. When performing metzitza (the sucking of blood after circumcision), the intent is clearly therapeutic - to help the child heal and prevent danger. This cannot be netilas neshama in the sense of weakening the person, since the goal is actually to strengthen and heal. Therefore, Tosfos argues that this should not be considered a Torah (תורה)-level prohibition but rather a rabbinic one.
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.
