A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
May wood that fell from a tree on Yom Tov be used for fuel? The shiur analyzes Beitzah 4b, examining whether the prohibition is hana'ah (benefit) from muktzeh or tiltul (handling) muktzeh, and whether adding permitted wood creates sufficient bitul. Rav Ashi's principle that davar sheyesh lo matir is not batel even by derabanan is central to resolving whether safek derabanan can be nullified in a mixture.
This shiur delivers an intensive analysis of Beitzah 4b, focusing on the case of wood (etzim) that fell from a date tree (she'nashru min ha'dekel) on Yom Tov. The central question is whether one may add permitted wood to the fallen (muktzeh) wood and then burn it all together for cooking or warmth. The Gemara (גמרא)'s statement by Rabah and Rav Masna permits adding wood and burning them, but the shakla v'tarya (Talmudic give-and-take) explores the precise grounds for this leniency. The shiur opens by examining the core issue: is the prohibition about moving the muktzeh wood (tiltul muktzeh) or deriving benefit from it (hana'ah from muktzeh)? Rashi (רש"י)'s language—"mi'zavas l'zavas" (moving from corner to corner)—suggests that the case involves actively rearranging the wood in the oven to spread the fire. The Gemara asks: if one moves the wood around (v'hakol ma'apach b'isur), doesn't that violate the prohibition against handling muktzeh? The answer given is that when one adds sufficient permitted wood (marbeh aleihem eitzim), the forbidden wood becomes nullified (batul) in the majority.
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 4b
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.
