A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can someone who pauses during brit milah on Shabbos (שבת) return to complete it, or does stopping permanently disqualify continuation? The shiur analyzes the principle of 'Pirush Ein HaChozer' through the Tannaitic debate in Shabbos 133b. The key insight emerges from understanding what the Mishna's language 'Kol tzorchei milah' includes—revealing that the machokes may center on whether cosmetic improvements qualify as legitimate completion versus forbidden additional melachah.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Gemara (גמרא) Shabbos (שבת) 133b, focusing on the principle of 'Pirush Ein HaChozer' (one who stops cannot return) in the context of brit milah on Shabbos. The discussion begins by examining Rav Yochanan's opinion that the Mishna holds that one cannot return to complete the milah after stopping, contrasted with other Tannaitic opinions including the Chachamim who permit returning to complete the procedure. The shiur explores the fundamental question of what constitutes 'stopping' (pirush) - whether it requires physically moving one's hand away or merely pausing the cutting action while keeping the knife in place. A central focus is understanding the Mishna's language 'Kol tzorchei milah' (all needs of milah) as a ribui (inclusion) that teaches additional laws beyond the basic requirements. The Gemara's analysis reveals a debate about whether this ribui comes to permit returning after stopping for procedures that are not absolutely necessary (sisas she'ein hamachvin) but are for hiddur mitzvah (מצוה) (beautification of the mitzvah). The shiur examines multiple Tannaitic opinions including Rav Yosei's view on when milah overrides Shabbos restrictions, and discusses whether the principle applies differently on weekdays versus Shabbos. The discussion includes practical applications about what constitutes essential versus optional aspects of the milah procedure, and whether one can perform additional cuts for cosmetic purposes after completing the basic obligation. The analysis concludes with questions about the majority opinion among the Tannaim and how this affects practical halachic decisions.
Shabbos 133b
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.
Up Next in this Series
How can Shabbos observance atone for the idolatry of Enosh's generation? The Rambam's reading shows that generation sought God through physical intermediaries rather than direct connection. Proper Shabbos observance creates authentic divine experience that naturally displaces attraction to spiritual substitutes - like tasting real coffee exposes ersatz as meaningless.
Why does the Gemara say one Shabbos protects from Amalek while two Shabboses bring redemption? The shiur applies a principle from Kiddushin about repetition changing psychology: the first time doing anything is experimental, but the second demonstrates genuine desire. True Shabbos connection with Hashem requires moving beyond spiritual curiosity to authentic internalization.
Why does the Gemara pray to be 'among those who eat three meals on Shabbos' rather than simply to fulfill the mitzvah? The shiur develops that Shabbos eating means 'tasting the day itself' - mindful appreciation that connects us to Shabbos's spiritual quality. This requires discipline and community support, with three meals corresponding to distinct phases of Shabbos time.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
