No community start suggestion yet.
When squeezing liquid from a sponge, is the issue psik reisha d'lo nicha lei or that no melacha occurred? Tosafos (תוספות) develops a chiddush that certain objects only become keilim through intention - without the need to use them, there's no tikun kli at all, not merely unwanted melacha.
The shiur analyzes a complex Tosafos (תוספות) on Kesubos 6a regarding the prohibition of squeezing (mefarek) on Shabbos (שבת). The Gemara (גמרא) presents cases where squeezing might occur without violating Shabbos - such as when liquid comes out incidentally while handling a sponge or grapes. The fundamental question is whether this constitutes a melacha that is merely unwanted (psik reisha d'lo nicha lei) or whether no melacha has been performed at all. Tosafos begins by addressing why certain cases of squeezing are not prohibited despite liquid being extracted. The initial approach suggests it's because the liquid is 'holech l'ibud' (going to be lost/wasted), making it unwanted and thus falling under the category of psik reisha d'lo nicha lei. However, Tosafos raises difficulties with this explanation, particularly regarding the relationship between melacha she'eina tzricha l'gufa and psik reisha d'lo nicha lei.
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.
