No community start suggestion yet.
What makes an action where you perform the deed but don't want the result (psik reisha d'lo nicha lei) different from regular melacha she'ein tzricha l'gufa? Tosfos argues it should be prohibited mid'rabbanan like melacha she'ein tzricha l'gufa, while the Orach holds it's permitted as dvar she'ein miskaven. The analysis reveals a fundamental distinction between intending the act versus intending the creative purpose of the melacha.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of a complex Tosfos on Kesubos 6a regarding the halachic status of psik reisha d'lo nicha lei (inevitable consequence that one doesn't desire). The discussion centers on a case where someone stuffs a wet cloth into a barrel opening, which will inevitably squeeze out liquid (s'chita/mefareik), though that's not the person's intent. Tosfos challenges the Orach's position that psik reisha d'lo nicha lei should be permitted as dvar she'ein miskaven (unintentional action). Instead, Tosfos argues it should be prohibited mid'rabbanan, similar to melacha she'ein tzricha l'gufa (work not needed for its essential purpose). The shiur explores the fundamental question of what distinguishes these two categories.
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.
