No community start suggestion yet.
Why can't a musaf be brought after the korban tamid shel bein ha'arbayim? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira: according to Ramban (רמב"ן), the issur hashlamah creates a prohibition in the musaf itself (a lav haba mechol aseh), while according to Rambam (רמב"ם), the issur is a din in the tamid—the tamid must be last. The Tosafos (תוספות)' answer to the Rosh Hashanah kashya turns on this yesod.
This shiur explores a fundamental dispute regarding the nature of the issur hashlamah—the prohibition against offering korbanos after the korban tamid shel bein ha'arbayim. The Gemara (גמרא) in Rosh Hashanah presents a difficulty: if witnesses arrived after the tamid shel shachar was brought on the thirtieth of Elul (making that day Rosh Chodesh retroactively), how could the musaf be brought, since bringing it after the tamid shel bein ha'arbayim would violate hashlamah? The Ramban (רמב"ן) in Sefer HaMitzvos counts hashlamah as one of the 613 mitzvos—a mitzvos aseh that all korbanos must be completed upon the olah of the morning tamid. He brings two proofs from the Gemara that this is an aseh: the Gemara in Pesachim states explicitly that it's an aseh, and the Gemara's formulation that korban Pesach (פסח) (which has kares) is docheh the aseh of hashlamah indicates it must be an aseh. The Rambam (רמב"ם), however, does not count hashlamah as a separate mitzvah (מצוה) in his list of taryag mitzvos.
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 5a
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.
