No community start suggestion yet.
Why isn't closing a door with a deer inside considered psik reisha when the Shulchan Aruch says psik reisha doesn't apply if the action could be done without that result? The shiur explores whether trapping depends on the inherent nature of the action or the specific circumstances, developing insights about melacha definition and intent.
This shiur tackles a fundamental question in psik reisha: the Shulchan Aruch establishes that if a melacha can be performed without an inevitable secondary result, then even when done with that result, it's not considered psik reisha. Rabbi Zweig applies this principle to the Gemara (גמרא)'s case of closing a door when a deer is inside. The Rashba permits this even with intent to trap the deer, provided one also intends to secure the house. The Ran objects that this should constitute psik reisha regardless of intent. The Shiltei Gibborim attempts to resolve this by arguing that since it's possible to close doors without trapping animals, this doesn't qualify as psik reisha. However, Rabbi Zweig finds this reasoning problematic - the Rashba explicitly permits the action even with intent to trap, making the psik reisha analysis seemingly irrelevant.
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 6b
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.
