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.
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.
