No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) cite pesukim about Shabbos (שבת) violations when the core question is executing someone on Shabbos? The shiur works through Rashi (רש"י)'s approach to understanding what "lo sa'aseh kol melacha" means—whether it prohibits each melacha individually or requires doing all thirty-nine melachos together to violate Shabbos. The discussion addresses why the Gemara treats havara as only a lav and explores the concept of davar she'yatza min haklal.
This shiur provides an intensive analysis of a complex sugya in Yevamos 6b, focusing on Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary regarding "l'chalek yatza" and the broader question of what constitutes chillul Shabbos (שבת). The Gemara (גמרא) appears to be addressing a contradiction: on one hand, we have the mitzvah (מצוה) to execute criminals (vehumas), and on the other, we have the prohibition of melacha on Shabbos. The central puzzle is why the Gemara brings pesukim about bishul psila (cooking lead for execution) and havara (kindling fire) when the more fundamental question seems to be whether beis din can perform netilas neshamah (taking a life) on Shabbos. Rabbi Zweig begins by establishing the basic difficulty: if the issue is whether execution overrides Shabbos, why doesn't the Gemara directly address killing itself rather than focusing on the preparatory melachos of cooking lead or making fire? The Gemara cites "lo savor eish" (do not kindle fire) as proof that even beis din cannot perform certain acts on Shabbos. But this seems to sidestep the main question—can you kill someone on Shabbos to fulfill a mitzvah?
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!
Yevamos 6b
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.
