No community start suggestion yet.
How can bris milah be considered "yom valayla" when circumcision isn't performed at night? The bris that sustains the world isn't the momentary act of milah, but the permanent state of being a baal bris. This covenant relationship exists constantly, making every circumcised Jew a perpetual partner with Hashem (ה׳) day and night.
Rabbi Zweig analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s interpretation of the pasuk "Im lo brisi chukash shamayim ve'aretz lo samti," which discusses the fundamental importance of bris (covenant) in maintaining the world's existence. The Gemara offers bris milah as one interpretation of this bris, but the Tois Fos Yontov raises a significant question: how can bris milah be considered "yom valayla" (day and night) when the actual circumcision is not performed at night? The Tois Fos Yontov suggests repunctuating the sentence to read: "Im lo brisi, yom valayla chukash shamayim ve'aretz lo samti" - if not for bris milah, then day and night, the laws of heaven and earth would not be established. However, this interpretation conflicts with the traditional trop (cantillation) of the pasuk.
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!
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.
