A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
If Hashem (ה׳)'s name was written without proper intent and rewritten over the original, is the document valid? The Gemara (גמרא) debates whether rewriting creates a disqualifying aesthetic defect (zeh keili viAnveihu) in a Sefer Torah (תורה), and whether this principle is binding or merely aspirational. The shiur analyzes the dispute between Rav Yehuda and the Chachamim.
This shiur examines Gittin 20a, focusing on a case where Hashem (ה׳)'s name was written without the proper intent (sh'lo lishma) and then rewritten on top of the original writing. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether such rewriting renders the document invalid, particularly in the context of a Sefer Torah (תורה) versus a get (divorce document). The Gemara presents the positions of Rav Hissa and Rav Acha bar Yaakov. Rav Hissa maintains that according to the Chachamim, rewriting renders both a get and a Sefer Torah invalid, while according to Rav Yehuda, both remain valid. Rav Acha bar Yaakov distinguishes between the two: by a Sefer Torah, the rewriting is problematic due to the principle of zeh keili viAnveihu (beautifying the mitzvah (מצוה)), but by a get, it remains valid since this aesthetic principle does not apply. The key question becomes whether zeh keili viAnveihu is an absolute disqualification (me'akev) or merely a preference (l'chatchila).
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 20a
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.
