A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What does it take for a later Beis Din to change or nullify an earlier Beis Din's takanah? The Rambam (רמב"ם) requires the later court to be "gadol b'chachmah u'minyan" — greater in wisdom and number. But how does that square with two specific takanos changed by Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai after the Churban — one about accepting testimony for Rosh Chodesh, the other about redeeming ma'aser sheni fruit? The shiur distinguishes between true bitul (nullifying what they wanted accomplished) versus being matir (where circumstances make fulfilling their intention impossible).
This shiur examines Rambam (רמב"ם) Hilchos Mamrim Perek 2, which addresses when a later Beis Din has the authority to overturn a takanah (rabbinic enactment) established by an earlier Beis Din. The Gemara (גמרא) in Beitzah 5a-5b discusses two takanos that were changed after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash by Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai. The first takanah prohibited accepting testimony for Rosh Chodesh after the time of the afternoon tamid offering. The second prohibited redeeming ma'aser sheni produce within a day's journey of Yerushalayim to ensure the city's markets remained vibrant. The Rambam rules that for a later Beis Din to overturn an earlier takanah, it must be "gadol b'chachmah u'minyan" — greater both in wisdom and in number than the first court. The Raavad challenges this from our Gemara: Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai changed both takanos, yet he was clearly not greater than the earlier Beis Din that instituted them. The Kesef Mishneh attempts to defend the Rambam by suggesting that Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai actually was greater than the previous generation, pointing to sources that suggest generational decline is not absolute. The Radvaz offers an alternative defense: these particular takanos were made conditionally or temporarily, with the understanding they could be changed when circumstances warranted.
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 5a-5b, Rambam Hilchos Mamrim 2
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.
