A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is davar sheyesh lo matirin not batel berov? The shiur analyzes Rashi (רש"י)'s approach that one should wait to eat beheter gamur rather than rely on bitul. A fundamental difficulty emerges: if a safek treifah is mixed with a beitzah shenoladah beyom tov, both factors are present—one has matirin, one doesn't—yet tomorrow one would still need bitul berov for the treifah issue, so why wait?
This shiur on Beitzah 3b explores the principle of davar sheyesh lo matirin (something that has a permitting factor) and why it is not nullified even in a majority. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether a safek beitzah shenoladah beyom tov (an egg laid on yom tov whose status is uncertain) is nullified when mixed with a thousand other eggs. The Mishna states that one egg is forbidden and does not become nullified. The shiur begins by examining whether the Mishna is discussing an egg that one is allowed to use as a base (like placing a cup on top of it), or whether it's discussing muktzeh itself. Rashi (רש"י) indicates that according to Rabbi Yitzchok, one cannot use something to serve an item that is muktzeh on Shabbos (שבת), so the Mishna must be understood as discussing a case where one took a permitted item and placed it on the egg. The Gemara then attempts to determine which opinions this teaching aligns with.
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!
Beitzah 3b
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.
