No community start suggestion yet.
Why does shechitah remove muktze from a vlad born on Yom Tov, but a mum on a bechor doesn't remove its muktze status? The shiur develops a yesod that ho-oma atsam mishchitah works only when shechitah creates a new object, not when it merely removes an impediment. A bechor with a mum isn't a new chefetz—just the same animal now permitted outside the Beis Hamikdash.
This shiur analyzes the sugya of ho-oma atsam mishchitah (when the heter of shechitah removes muktze status) in Beitzah 6a. Rabbi Zweig opens with several fundamental questions that trouble him about this sugya. The primary kasha concerns why the Gemara (גמרא) didn't ask from behemah omedes legadol v'lados (an animal designated for breeding) instead of from treifah. If the mother is designated for breeding rather than slaughter, the offspring shouldn't be muktze agav imo (muktze because of its mother), making this a more straightforward challenge to Rav's position. The shiur identifies two possible approaches to resolve this difficulty: either Rav holds that even behemah omedes legadol v'lados would be mutar (permitted), or Shmuel holds it would be asur even though you don't say ho-oma atsam mishchitah. After exploring both possibilities, Rabbi Zweig argues that the second approach is more promising because the Rambam (רמב"ם) and Shulchan Aruch rule that according to Rav, the vlad of a treifah is also muktze.
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 6a
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.
