A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
May you perform a bris when the hot water needed afterward has spilled, knowing you'll have to be mechalel Shabbos (שבת) for pikuach nefesh later? The Ramban (רמב"ן) permits doing the mitzvah (מצוה) now since afterward it becomes pikuach nefesh (which is hutrah). The Ba'al HaMa'or forbids it, holding you cannot put yourself into a situation requiring chilul Shabbos (since pikuach nefesh is only dechuyah).
This shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute between the Ramban (רמב"ן) and the Ba'al HaMa'or regarding whether one may perform a bris milah on Shabbos (שבת) when the hot water needed after the milah has spilled, knowing that this will necessitate warming water afterward—a melachah that would only be permitted due to pikuach nefesh. The Gemara (גמרא) in Eruvin discusses a case where water prepared for milah spilled. Tosfos establishes that this refers to water needed before the milah (to warm the child), not after, since water needed after the milah would be a case of pikuach nefesh, permitting even a Jew to warm it. The question arises: if only the water for after the milah spilled, may we proceed with the bris, knowing we'll need to be mechalel Shabbos afterward?
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!
Gittin 8b
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.
