No community start suggestion yet.
What does mitoch sheutar habur letzorach mean on Yom Tov? The shiur explores whether Yom Tov melachos are inherently permitted (like the Ramban (רמב"ן)) or prohibited with a heter of ochel nefesh. This fundamental chakira reshapes how we understand the entire framework of Yom Tov observance.
This shiur analyzes Kesubos 7a's discussion of the mitoch principle on Yom Tov, examining the fundamental nature of melacha on Yom Tov. Rabbi Zweig presents multiple approaches from Rishonim regarding whether Yom Tov melachos are inherently permitted or prohibited with specific heterim. The shiur begins with the Gemara (גמרא)'s statement about mitoch sheutar habur letzorach (since slaughter is permitted for need, it's also permitted not for need), raising questions about the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position. The Rambam holds that habur (slaughter) is only permitted as a tolada of shechita, but this creates difficulties with the mitoch principle since the Rambam generally doesn't accept mitoch for habur.
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!
Kesubos 7a
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.
