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.
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.
