No community start suggestion yet.
When the Diaspora kept two days of Yom Tov, were they one sanctity or two? The Gemara (גמרא) in Beitzah 4b records that Rava held nolad bezeh muteres bezeh (an egg laid on one day may be eaten on the other), while Rav Assi held it was forbidden. The shiur probes whether Rav Assi's safek reflected uncertainty about the calendar or about whether Chazal's decree to keep two days imposed one unified kedusha or two distinct kedushos.
The shiur opens with the Gemara (גמרא) in Beitzah 4b discussing the halachic status of the two days of Yom Tov observed in the Diaspora (Shnei Yom Tov Shel Galuyos). Rava held that an egg laid on the first day is permitted on the second day (nolad bezeh muteres bezeh), indicating that the two days have separate sanctities (shnei kedushos). Rav Assi held that an egg laid on one day is forbidden on the other (nolad bezeh asur bezeh), which the Gemara initially assumes means Rav Assi viewed the two days as having a single unified sanctity (kedusha achas). The Gemara challenges this understanding by noting that Rav Assi was mavdil (recited Havdalah) between the two days, which would be inappropriate if they share one kedusha. The Gemara therefore concludes that Rav Assi was uncertain (mestapek) whether the two days constitute kedusha achas or shnei kedushos, and was stringent on both counts—treating them as one kedusha for the nolad question and as two kedushos for Havdalah. Rashi (רש"י) explains that the original basis for two-day Yom Tov in the Diaspora was the uncertainty (safek) over when the Beis Din in Eretz Yisrael sanctified the new month, since messengers could not reach distant communities in time. Rashi emphasizes that mid'Oraisa, only the first day has actual sanctity; the second day is kept mi-safek. The shiur notes that Rashi's language is striking: he refers to the institution of two days even in an era when the Jewish community had already established the fixed calendar and was baki b'kviri de'yarcha (expert in calculating the months). This raises a fundamental question: if people in the Diaspora knew the correct date of the month through astronomical calculation, why would they keep two days at all? And if they did keep two days out of adherence to custom (minhag ha'avos), what is the halachic nature of that second day—is it din d'Rabbanan with the force of chol, or does it carry a real kedusha?
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.
