No community start suggestion yet.
Why isn't an egg laid on Yom Tov considered nolad (newly created) when the mother is designated for eating? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s principle of uchladafras—food separated from food—examining how Tosafos (תוספות)'s requirement of "iboi shochet" (one could slaughter the mother) resolves the nolad problem, and explores the Maharsha's challenge that this same logic should permit eggs from mothers designated for egg-laying.
This shiur provides a detailed analysis of Beitzah 2a, focusing on the fundamental principles of muktza and nolad as they apply to eggs laid on Yom Tov. The discussion centers on the dispute between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai regarding whether an egg laid on Yom Tov may be eaten, and specifically on understanding the Gemara (גמרא)'s principle of uchladafras (food separated from food). The shiur begins by establishing the basic question: When the Gemara states that if the mother is "omeres l'achila" (designated for eating), there is no problem because of uchladafras, why doesn't the egg still have a problem of nolad? The egg is a brand-new entity—the Ran explicitly treats it as having no prior history. So how does uchladafras remove the issue of nolad? This fundamental question requires a proper hagdara (conceptual definition).
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 2a
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.
