A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Is the blood at first relations (dam besulim) stored in packets or connected to the body? The Gemara (גמרא)'s question depends on whether the issur of chaburah is netilas neshamah or tzavei'a (dyeing). Tosfos analyzes Rashi (רש"י)'s position on what constitutes the forbidden labor of chaburah.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental Talmudic debate about the nature of dam besulim (blood from first relations) and the underlying prohibition of chaburah (wounding). The Gemara (גמרא) asks whether dam besulim is mefukad pakod (stored in separate packets) or chaburah mechaber (connected to the body). This question has practical implications for the issur of chaburah - if it's mefukad pakod, there would be no violation of chaburah when removing it, but if it's chaburah mechaber, removing it would constitute making a wound. Tosfos extensively critiques Rashi (רש"י)'s position on the nature of the chaburah prohibition. In Masechta Shabbos (שבת), Rashi explains that chaburah violations involving sheratzim occur due to tzavei'a (dyeing the skin), but Tosfos argues this cannot be correct. He presents several difficulties: First, the Gemara in Eilu Treifos indicates that sheratzim without skin wouldn't be liable for tzavei'a when blood emerges, contradicting Rashi's approach. Second, by dam besulim there's no applicable tzavei'a. Third, by milah there's similarly no dyeing involved.
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.
