A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What changed when Chazal made a takana not to accept witnesses after Mincha on Rosh Hashanah? The shiur works through the mechanics of kedushas achas—whether the first day became vadai Yom Tov (Yisroel's reading) or remained safek but with new restrictions (Yitzchok's reading). Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) disagree on which shir the Leviim sang when witnesses had already arrived.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Masechta Rosh Hashanah 5a dealing with the takana that Chazal instituted regarding when to accept witnesses for Rosh Chodesh Tishrei. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses how before this takana, witnesses could come at any time during the day, which once caused a problem when they arrived after Mincha and disrupted the Tamid shel bein ha'arbayim. Chazal therefore instituted that witnesses would not be accepted after Mincha. The Gemara states that as a result, both days of Rosh Hashanah have a din of "kedushas achas"—one unified sanctity. Rabbi Zweig begins by posing the fundamental question: What practically changed before and after the takana? Before the takana, people kept the first day mi'safek—perhaps witnesses would come and it would be Yom Tov. After the takana, when witnesses cannot be accepted after Mincha anyway, what is different about how people observe the day? Why does the Gemara describe this as "kedushas achas"?
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!
Rosh Hashanah 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.
