A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna say "tayochel/lo sayochel" rather than "asur/mutar"? Tosafos (תוספות) asks that "lo sayochel" creates a mistaken inference that Beis Hillel permits tiltul. The Maharsha explains Tosafos' answer: achilah and tiltul are two separate issurim, not one issur with different degrees, and the lashon "tayochel" necessarily encompasses both.
The shiur presents an intricate analysis of Tosafos (תוספות) on Beitzah 2a, focusing on the language the Mishna uses in the machlokes between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel regarding an egg laid on Yom Tov. Tosafos asks why the Mishna says "tayochel" (you may eat it) and "lo sayochel" (you may not eat it) rather than "mutar" and "asur." Tosafos initially suggests that "tayochel" indicates not just tiltul (moving) is permitted, but even achilah (eating). However, this creates a problem: according to Beis Hillel, "lo sayochel" might suggest that only eating is forbidden but tiltul is permitted, which contradicts the established halacha (הלכה) that tiltul of muktzeh is also forbidden. The Maharsha explains that Tosafos' question assumes a principle: when there are conflicting potential inferences between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, we normally apply "koach d'hetaira adif" - we formulate the statement to emphasize the maximum permissibility. However, the Maharsha argues this principle applies only to regular tannaim, not to Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, because "Shammai bemakom Beis Hillel lav mashni" - Beis Shammai's opinion is not of primary concern where it conflicts with Beis Hillel. Therefore, we should prioritize clarity in Beis Hillel's position, which would require saying "asur/mutar" to make clear that even tiltul is forbidden.
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.
