A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How does the Rambam (רמב"ם) understand the melacha of mefarek when extracting blood or other liquids? The shiur develops a novel reading that mefarek requires both taking out the liquid AND needing it as ochel (food). This resolves major contradictions between the Rambam and Gemara (גמרא) regarding whether mifkad pokad (naturally stored liquid) constitutes mefarek.
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of the melacha of mefarek (extracting liquids) on Shabbos (שבת), focusing on a fundamental machlokes Rishonim regarding what constitutes this prohibition. The Gemara (גמרא) in Kesubos 5b discusses whether blood-letting on Shabbos is permitted, with the key distinction being dam mifkad pokad (blood that is naturally stored) versus chbur mechber (blood that is attached/connected). The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position creates significant difficulties for the Acharonim. In Hilchos Shabbos, the Rambam states that mefarek is a toldah of dosh (threshing), and one is only liable when there is tzorech ledam - a need for the blood. The Chasam Sofer raises a fundamental contradiction: if mifkad pokad exempts from mefarek, how can we explain that squeezing grapes and olives (where the wine and oil are mifkad pokad) constitutes a biblical violation of schita?
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.
