A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna use "tayochel" (you shall eat) instead of "asur" (forbidden)? The shiur analyzes Tosafos (תוספות)' two approaches: first, that the term would mislead about Beis Hillel's position, and second, that achila and tiltul are two distinct issurim with separate Torah (תורה) sources, not merely ends of a spectrum. This fundamental distinction has critical halachic ramifications for safek muchan and other muktzah applications.
This shiur addresses a fundamental question about the Mishna's choice of language in Masechta Beitzah. The Mishna states that an egg laid on Yom Tov is "tayochel"—permitted to be eaten according to Beis Shammai—rather than saying the egg is "asur" (forbidden) according to Beis Hillel. Tosafos (תוספות) raises this linguistic difficulty: why doesn't the Mishna use the more comprehensive term "asur," which would include both eating and handling (tiltul), rather than the narrower language of eating? Rabbi Zweig presents Tosafos' two answers to this question. The first answer relies on the principle "stam beiah l'achila kaim"—when the Mishna discusses an egg, eating is the default assumption. Since eating is the primary context, the Mishna formulates its statement in terms of eating rather than a general prohibition. However, this answer is challenged by the fact that according to Beis Hillel, the egg is forbidden even to handle (tiltul), not just to eat. If the Mishna had used "asur," it would have been misleading because "asur" implies a permanent prohibition (asur l'olam), whereas the egg is only forbidden on that day (bo bayom). This is proven from another Mishna in Shabbos (שבת) regarding oil that was used for a Shabbos lamp, where similar terminology appears.
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.
