A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why are certain melachos permitted on Yom Tov while others are forbidden? The shiur examines Rashi (רש"י) and the Chinuch's view that the distinction lies in whether a melacha can be done before Yom Tov—defining melachas ochel nefesh versus melachas avoda. This framework explains why hava'ara and hotza'ah are mutar even sh'lo l'tzorech, while addressing kashyas from grinding spices, fishing, and cheese-making.
The shiur opens with an analysis of Rashi (רש"י)'s explanation in Beitzah 3a regarding which melachos are permitted on Yom Tov. Rashi holds that melachos which could have been done before Yom Tov are considered melachas avoda and remain forbidden, even if done l'tzorech ochel nefesh. Only melachos that cannot be done beforehand—because they would spoil or lose quality—are considered true melachas ochel nefesh and are permitted on Yom Tov. The Chinuch explicitly adopts this framework, stating that the definition of melachas avoda versus melachas ochel nefesh depends on efshar la'asos me'erev Yom Tov—whether the melacha could have been done the day before. The Chinuch brings this as the reason certain spice-grinding (shechika samonim) is permitted: since grinding certain spices beforehand would cause them to lose taste (mafsik ta'amo), that grinding is considered melachas ochel nefesh and therefore mutar. This stands in contrast to regular grinding (techina), which is melachas avoda because it could have been done yesterday.
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 3a
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.
