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.
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.
