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.
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.
