A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Is ochel nefesh on Yom Tov a heter allowing otherwise forbidden melacha, or does it define a different category of permitted activity? The Rambam (רמב"ם) holds it's a heter like pikuach nefesh, while the Ramban (רמב"ן) and Rav Maggid view it as non-melacha entirely. This fundamental dispute explains the Rambam's ruling on cooking for tomorrow.
This shiur presents a fundamental machlokes Rishonim regarding the nature of ochel nefesh on Yom Tov. The Ramban (רמב"ן) and Rav Maggid hold that ochel nefesh is not melacha at all - the Torah (תורה) only forbids meleches avoda (work-like activity), while ochel nefesh activities lack the character of melacha entirely. According to this view, what you do directly for eating pleasure is not considered effortful work. The Rambam (רמב"ם), however, learns that ochel nefesh is a heter - you are doing melacha, but it's permitted like pikuach nefesh. This parallels how pikuach nefesh allows melacha on Shabbos (שבת) as a heter, not because it's not melacha. The Ran supports this approach, distinguishing between pikuach nefesh being dechuya (pushed aside) on Shabbos versus ochel nefesh being huchra (permitted) on Yom Tov.
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.
