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.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
