No community start suggestion yet.
Why isn't a beitzah shenoldah b'Yom Tov that falls into a mixture nullified by majority? The Gemara (גמרא) explores whether davar sheyesh lo matirin applies to rabbinic prohibitions. A fundamental distinction emerges: vadai derabanan prohibitions (where the issur itself is certain) retain davar sheyesh lo matirin, but safek gezeiros (doubtful applications of rabbinic decrees) do not.
The shiur analyzes Beitzah 3b's discussion of why a beitzah shenoldah b'Yom Tov that becomes mixed with permitted eggs is not nullified through bitul b'rov, despite being only a derabanan issur. The Gemara (גמרא) initially assumes that safek derabanan lekulah should permit eating from the mixture, raising the question of why davar sheyesh lo matirin (waiting until tomorrow when the issur lapses) should apply to rabbinic prohibitions at all. The Maharsha's approach is examined: he suggests the Gemara's question applies even to Rabbah's position regarding beitzah shenoldah b'Yom Tov itself (not just Yom Tov after Shabbos (שבת)), since this too is only derabanan. This raises questions about why the Rambam (רמב"ם) paskens the halacha (הלכה) of davar sheyesh lo matirin even for beitzah shenoldah b'Yom Tov dalma (regular Yom Tov), which is only a rabbinic prohibition.
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 3b
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.
