No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Tosafos (תוספות) understand that even a baki is considered she'aino baki regarding hatoya? The sugya explores whether expertise in hatoya makes biah permitted on Shabbos (שבת) without concern for psik reisha, and why even experts remain nervous. The analysis shows that true bikius requires such effort that even experts face tirda, affecting the entire framework of psik reisha.
This Gemara (גמרא) on Kesubos 6b addresses when a husband is permitted to have biah with his wife on Shabbos (שבת), particularly focusing on the concept of hatoya (careful intimate relations to avoid bleeding) and the halachic status of baki versus she'aino baki (expert versus non-expert). The sugya begins with a question of secretion - whether biah on Shabbos constitutes psik reisha (inevitable consequence) of causing bleeding, which would be forbidden. The Gemara initially answers that bikiim (experts) know how to perform hatoya, making biah permissible. However, this leads to a new question: if someone is truly expert, why would he be obligated in kriyas Shema? An expert shouldn't have tirda (anxiety) that would require this obligation. The Gemara responds that even a baki is considered she'aino baki - meaning even experts face uncertainty.
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.
