No community start suggestion yet.
Is wood that fell from a tree on Shabbos (שבת) permitted on Yom Tov? The shiur analyzes the disagreement between Rav and Rav Yochanan on the status of etzim shenoshru min ha'dekel. The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position is clarified—he rules there's no issur hachana d'Oraisa by wood, only muktzah, contrasting with the Rif's view of hachana d'Rabanan.
This shiur provides an extensive analysis of Beitzah 4b, focusing on the status of etzim shenoshru min ha'dekel (wood that fell from a tree) on Shabbos (שבת) and whether it may be used on Yom Tov. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses the machlokes between Rav and Rav Yochanan, with Rav holding it is forbidden and Rav Yochanan holding it is permitted. The shiur explores the underlying reasons for these positions—whether the prohibition is due to muktzah, noilad, or hachana. The shiur examines a detailed reading of Rashi (רש"י), who uses the term "nishbar" (broken) rather than "noshru" (fell), suggesting there may be a distinction between wood that fell naturally versus wood that broke off. Tosafos (תוספות) earlier in the masechta defines "nishbar" as something that was re'uya (fit for use) before Shabbos, which would seemingly eliminate a muktzah problem due to yoshev umitzapeh (waiting in anticipation). The shiur suggests that if this were the case, the prohibition would not be muktzah but rather hachana—preparation from Shabbos for Yom Tov.
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.
