No community start suggestion yet.
What was the status of Yom Tov Sheini in Temple times, and did they make Havdalah between the two days? The shiur develops a novel understanding that safek de'oraisa l'chumra operates differently when you're certain of the obligation but uncertain when to fulfill it, leading to treating both days as vadai yom tov—not just a "don't take chances" chumra.
This shiur on Beitzah 4a explores the fundamental question of what Yom Tov Sheini meant in Temple times, focusing on whether they made Havdalah between the first and second day of yom tov. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses Rav Asi's position regarding whether the two days are treated as one kedusha or two separate kedushos, and whether one may be maavir from one day to the next. Rabbi Zweig begins by challenging the basic assumption: if everyone agrees we keep two days yom tov, why does it matter whether it's kedusha achas or shetei kedushos? The question of Havdalah emerges as the central puzzle. If it's truly two separate kedushos, why don't we make Havdalah between them? If it's one kedusha, how can Rav Asi make Havdalah? Even more fundamentally, why didn't they make Havdalah in Temple times when the safek was real?
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 4a
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.
