A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What does the Rambam (רמב"ם) mean when defining mefareik as "hu shetzorech ledam" - that one needs the blood? The shiur analyzes seeming contradictions where the Rambam rules one is liable for mefareik even without wanting the blood, like striking someone in anger for nachas ruach.
This advanced shiur provides a detailed analysis of the Talmudic tractate Kesubos focusing on the melacha (prohibited Sabbath labor) of mefareik (extracting/separating). The primary discussion centers on understanding the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s definition and application of this melacha, particularly his formulation "hu shetzorech ledam" (one who needs the blood). The shiur begins by examining the fundamental dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Chachamim regarding whether the prohibition of dosh (threshing) applies to "ein dosh ela bgedulei karka" (only things that grow from the ground). This extends to the question of whether mefareik applies to fish, animals, and humans, with the conclusion that all are considered gedulei karka for this purpose.
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.
