No community start suggestion yet.
When is an unintended consequence considered psik reisha d'lo nichlei versus melacha she'eina tzricha l'gufa? The shiur explores how Tosafos (תוספות) treats a case where tikun manah occurs while eating - questioning whether this definite consequence should be classified as psik reisha or the more stringent category of melacha she'eina tzricha l'gufa.
This advanced Gemara (גמרא) shiur examines a fundamental distinction in Shabbos (שבת) law between psik reisha d'lo nichlei (unintended inevitable consequence that brings no benefit) and melacha she'eina tzricha l'gufa (performing a melacha for a different purpose than intended). The discussion centers on a case in Kesubos 6a involving tikun manah (vessel repair) that occurs while eating. Rabbi Zweig analyzes the positions of Rav and Shmuel regarding when certain actions are permitted, with the Gemara initially suggesting this involves davar she'eina mitkaven (unintentional action). However, the analysis reveals this may actually be psik reisha - an inevitable consequence. The shiur examines Tosafos (תוספות) who characterizes this as psik reisha d'lo nichlei, meaning the repair happens inevitably but the person doesn't want or benefit from the repair itself.
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 6a
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.
