A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why did the Gemara (גמרא) institute two days of Rosh Hashanah when witnesses arrived late? The shiur analyzes Beitzah 5a, contrasting Rashi (רש"י)'s view (the first day remained a safek) with Tosafot's approach (it became a vadai Yom Tov), and explores the resulting machlokes Ramban (רמב"ן)-Rambam (רמב"ם) over the issur hashlama—whether it's a deficiency in the Korban Tamid itself or in what's brought afterward.
The shiur opens with a fundamental question from Beitzah 5a: Before the Takana that established two days of Rosh Hashanah, what happened when witnesses (eidim) came late—after the time when Beis Din would no longer accept testimony (such as after Mincha)? The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where the thirtieth of Elul began as a safek Yom Tov, but once the deadline passed without witnesses, it became clear no eidim would come. What status did that day have from that point forward? Rabbi Zweig presents two fundamental approaches to understanding the Gemara. According to one reading, after the deadline when no more eidim could be accepted (let's say 3:00 PM), they continued to observe the day me'sufek—maintaining the same safek status they had been observing all day. This would mean they remained noheig safek Yom Tov even though they now knew eidim weren't coming. According to an alternative reading, once the time passed when eidim could no longer be accepted, the day became vadai chol—they were fully noheig like a weekday, even putting on tefillin, because the absence of eidim proved definitively it wasn't Yom Tov.
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 5a
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.
