No community start suggestion yet.
When a mechusar kippurim enters the Beis Hamikdash, does the Torah (תורה) permit the issur of tuma or remove the tuma status entirely? Two approaches to the Gemara (גמרא)'s proof from cholel be'ishur ishur emerge: either the Torah takes away tuma status (making a baal keri also permissible), or the Torah permits the issur itself (meaning more tuma doesn't matter). The distinction shapes how cholel works for eishes ach/achos isha.
The shiur analyzes a complex Tosfos on Yevamos 7b dealing with the principle of cholel be'ishur ishur—the concept that when one prohibition is permitted, a related prohibition may also be permitted. The Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion centers on whether a mechusar kippurim (one who needs atonement) who is also a baal keri (ritually impure from seminal emission) may enter the Beis Hamikdash. The central question is: what is the nature of the heter for mechusar kippurim to enter the Mikdash? Rabbi Zweig presents two fundamentally different approaches to understanding the Gemara's principle. The first approach holds that when the Torah (תורה) permits a mechusar kippurim to enter for kaparah, it is not actually permitting the prohibition of tumah at all. Rather, the Torah removes the status of tuma entirely—for purposes of kaparah, the person is simply not considered tamei. This is a din of removing the gezeirah rather than making it mutar. According to this reading, the principle of cholel be'ishur ishur means that just as the first tuma (mechusar kippurim) does not apply, so too the second tuma (baal keri) should not apply.
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!
Yevamos 7b
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.
