More Discussions for this daf
1. Yichud in Yehudah 2. Who is the Ramach? 3. Chupah & Kidushin
4. Tosfos DH Mitoch 5. Mo'avi v'Lo Mo'avis 6. Review Questions
7. Pakid v'Lo Akir
DAF DISCUSSIONS - KESUVOS 7

Benzi asks:

The gemara answers over here that here in the case of Dam Besulim the blood is collected but not detached completely from the skin and therefore it's similar to a case of Mechubar which will be forbidden. My question is that according to this view that it's similar to a case of Mechubar because it's not completely detached from the skin so why will the other Man d'Amar who holds that it's Mutar to do a Be'ilah on shabbos why will it be Mutar but it should be Asur because its similar to a case of Mechubar?

Benzi, London

The Kollel replies:

Rashi above (5b, DH Mifkad) writes that the Man d'Amar that it is Mutar understands that the blood is not absorbed in the skin, but rather it is considered as though a door is locked in front of the blood. One opens the door and the blood comes out. Since it was never absorbed inside the skin, this is permitted.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

Benzi asks:

The gemara answers over here that here in the case of Dam Besulim the blood is collected but not detached completely from the skin and therefore it's similar to a case of Mechubar which will be forbidden but its not exactly the same as Mechubar. My question is that according to this Man d'Amar thats its not exactly the same as Mechubar then how will he learn the gemara in 5b which asks O Chiburei Michbar but according to this Man d'Amar you are not making a proper chabura

The Kollel replies:

The Ritva (end of 6b) writes that according to Rashi, mid'Oraisa it is considered as "collected," "Pakid," so there is no Torah prohibition against Be'ilah of the Besulah on Shabbos even according to the stringent opinion on 5b ("Chiburei Michbar"). However, since it is not detached completely from the skin, but is slightly attached in its place, this means that there is a d'Rabanan prohibition because it is similar to Mechubar.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

Benzi asks:

According to what you are saying that the ritva says that there will be no issur Min Ha'Torah because it's not completely similar to a case of Mechubar but rather it will only be Asur Mi'd'Rabanan then does that mean when the gemara asks on 5b Dam Mifkad Pakid O Mechubar so is the question of the gemara a question of Mi'd'Rabanan in the Tzad Mechubar, that do we say Dam Mifkad Pakid and therefore it will be Mutar D'Oraisa or do we say that it's Mechubar and therefore it will only be Asur Mi'd'Rabanan is this now the Kushya of the gemara in 5b according to this ritva?

The Kollel replies:

Yes, it transpires at the end of the Sugya that the question on 5b was only a question in a d'Rabanan law and there was no d'Oraisa issue at stake. We may not have known yet, when we were on 5b, that the question was not about a d'Oraisa, but when the Gemara (end of 6b) brought the Mishnah that says it is permitted to break the abscess ("Mapis Morsa") to remove the puss, we decided that the difference between this case and the Besulim case cannot be too great. If Mapis Morsa is permitted l'Chatchilah, then the Besulim case will not be Asur mid'Oraisa but only Asur mid'Rabanan.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

Benzi asks:

can u also say that according to the ritva once we get to the maskana of the gemara that it's all midrabanan so can we say that earlier when the gemara was claring whether Dam Mifkad Pakid O Mechubar it was claring in Mi'Doraisa whether it's Mutar or Asur and now the gemara is saying that really it's mifkad pakid and Mi'Doraisa it's Mutar but still Mi'D'Rabanan it's Asur because its similar to Mechubar can u say this. Or do you have to say that now in the end of the gemara when the gemara says that we are speaking in midrabanan so do u have to say that the Kasha earlier on 5b whether Dam Mifkad Pakid O Mechubar the gemara was claring in midrabanan?

The Kollel replies:

There is a general rule in Gemara and Halachah: "Afushei Plugta Lo Mafshinan" -- "We attempt not to increase disputes (or make the disputes too broad)." Therefore, it would seem that it is better to assume that the original question on 5b was only asking about mid'Rabanan: is the Be'ilah on Shabbos forbidden mid'Rabanan or is it permitted l'Chatchilah? Otherwise, we would be saying that one opinion maintains that it is a Torah prohibition, while the other opinion maintains that it is totally permitted, which means there is a very big difference betwween the two stances.

Another advantage in saying that the original question on 5b was whether it is permitted l'Chatchilah or forbidden only mid'Rabanan is as follows:

If one does not follow the above approach, this would mean that the Gemara on 5b entertained the possibility that the Be'ilah is Asur mid'Oraisa because the blood is totally absorbed in the skin. On the other hand, the second opinion in the Gemara maintains that it is Mutar l'Chatchilah because it is not absorbed at all in the skin.

The problem is that this sounds like a "Machlokes b'Metzi'us," a dispute about a scientific fact. We definitely try to avoid saying that disputes in the Gemara are about scientific fact. Rather, we say that disputes in the Gemara are about the correct Halachic approach to a matter.

If one says like the Ritva at the beginning of the Sugya as well, then one does not have to learn that there was a Machlokes b'Metzi'us. Rather, everyone agrees that the blood is not properly absorbed in the skin, so there is no possibility that a Torah prohbition of "Chovel" exists. However, since the blood is not totally uprooted from the flesh, and is still partially stuck into the skin, it looks similar to Chovel, as the Ritva writes. The question of the Gemara now is: Did the Rabanan make an Isur mid'Rabanan because it looks similar to Chovel to the onlookers?This is a Machlokes about what the mid'Rabanan law is. It is not a Machlokes about the Metzi'us but rather a Machlokes concerning whether we make an Isur d'Rabanan on something which is not Chovel d'Oraisa.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

Benzi asks:

So according to what you are saying that the gemara doesn't want to make a machlokes in metzias then how do you understand the havah amina of the gemara because in the havah amina of the gemara I understood that the gemara was asking that is it like making a chabura because it's completely attached to the skin and therefore there will be an איסור דארייתא or is it not attatched to the skin it's just like unlocking a door where the blood just comes out and therefore it will be מותר לכתחילה? So it seems like from the havah amina that there is already a machlokes in metzias.

The Kollel replies:

Now that we get to the end of the Sugya (I am not saying that we necessarily knew this at the beginning of the Sugya), we can say that when we asked the question on 5b we knew already that the blood is not completely absorbed in the skin, and therefore it was obvious to us that there is no d'Oraisa issue involved. However, the possibilty on 5b that "Chiburei Michbar" means that since the blood is somewhat stuck in its place, it is considered as being similar to Mechubar, and therefore it should be forbidden mid'Rabanan.

The other opinion on 5b, "Mifkad Pakid," maintains that there is no reason to make an Isur d'Rabanan here. This opinion only follows the Torah law and does not see any justification to make a new Rabbinical Isur of Chaburah.

In summary, we knew from the beginning that the blood is not fully absorbed so there will be no Isur d'Oraisa. The question was only whether we should make an Isur d'Rabanan. This is not a Machlokes in Metzi'us. This is a Machlokes in Halachah -- whether or not to make a "Harchakah d'Rabanan," whether the Rabanan should distance us from what resembles an Isur d'Oraisa, even though it is not actually an Isur d'Oraisa.

Yasher Koach,

Dovid Bloom