A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why are we permitted to perform hatafas dam bris on a child born circumcised (nolad mahul), causing pain without removing an orlah? The shiur develops a chakira: regular bris accomplishes two things—removing the orlah (physical correction) and hachnasas habris (covenant membership). When the child is born mahul, only the second remains. The answer: hachnasas habris benefits the child by giving him a father with the mesirus nefesh of Avrohom Avinu—a chinuch advantage that justifies the procedure.
This shiur analyzes a Midrash discussing the halachic status of a child born already circumcised (tinok shenolad mahul). The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that such a child requires hatafas dam bris—drawing a drop of blood as a symbolic act—based on the double language "himol yimol" in the Torah (תורה)'s command regarding milah. The fundamental question the Midrash raises is: "ma hu mutar"—are we permitted to do this? The shiur rejects the Marzoh's explanation that the question concerns whether hatafas dam bris overrides Shabbos (שבת). This interpretation is problematic because the Midrash's language doesn't mention Shabbos, and the Torah already provides a pasuk permitting the procedure. The Radal's approach—changing the text from "mutar" to "chayav"—is also unsatisfying, as it requires altering the established girsa.
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!
Shabbos 135a-137b (regarding bris milah on Shabbos and the laws of hatafas dam bris)
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.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
