A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) rule that produce from Eretz Yisrael taken to Surya requires terumah mid'rabanan, but produce taken to Egypt or Shinar does not? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: Yehoshua's kibbush established God's sovereignty (kedusha rishona), while Ezra's return created Jewish national ownership (kedusha shniya). Surya, conquered individually by Dovid, represents chazaka—Jewish ownership—making it uniquely subject to terumah even mid'rabanan.
The shiur examines a fundamental machlokes between the Rambam (רמב"ם) and the Raavad in Hilchos Terumas (Mishneh Torah (תורה), Bikkurim 1:22) regarding produce that grew in Eretz Yisrael and was then taken outside its borders. The Rambam rules that such produce is exempt from terumah and ma'asros when taken to chutz la'aretz, but obligated mid'rabanan when taken to Surya (Syria). The Raavad challenges this, arguing that if produce is obligated mid'rabanan in lands adjacent to Eretz Yisrael (like Egypt and Shinar), then produce that actually grew in Eretz Yisrael should certainly be obligated mid'rabanan everywhere in chutz la'aretz, not just in Surya. Rabbi Zweig develops a fundamental distinction to resolve this machlokes. According to the Rambam, there are two fundamentally different types of rabbinic obligations in terumah. The rabbinic obligations in lands like Egypt, Shinar, Ammon, and Moav are obligations on "peiros chutz la'aretz"—a new rabbinic enactment that created chiyuvim on produce of those lands because of their proximity to Eretz Yisrael. But produce that grew in Eretz Yisrael has no connection to those lands, so there is no obligation when it is taken there. Surya, however, is different. Surya is considered "peiros Eretz Yisrael mid'rabanan"—because Surya itself has a status of Eretz Yisrael on a rabbinic level, produce from Eretz Yisrael retains its obligation there.
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 8a
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.
