A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When burial is permitted on Yom Tov through non-Jews, whose perspective governs—the living's obligation or the deceased's needs? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira: the Bahag treats burial as the chai's duty balanced against his issur of amira l'akum, while Tosafos (תוספות) and the Rosh hold we step into the meis' shoes, performing what he would want. This principle explains machlokos Rishonim on burial timing, kavod hameis, and the scope of melacha permitted.
This shiur addresses a series of related halachic issues surrounding burial on Yom Tov, building to a fundamental yesod that explains multiple machlokos Rishonim. The starting point is the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s ruling that a meis who died on Yom Tov Rishon is buried by non-Jews (goyim) regardless of whether the body has begun to decay (ishtoy or lo ishtoy), in contrast to the Bahag who permits amira l'akum only when ishtoy. The Rosh's kashas on the Bahag include kavod hameis, kavod habrios, the issur of halanas hameis, and tza'ar l'einaim on Yom Tov. Additionally, the Rambam permits Jews themselves to bury on Yom Tov Sheini even when goyim are available, and requires goyim to perform the entire burial (including carrying and placing the body) on Yom Tov Rishon—points on which the Ran and Maggid Mishneh disagree regarding the scope of Jewish involvement. The shiur then introduces a chakira: when one has a chiyuv to do something for another person (such as burying a meis), how does halacha (הלכה) conceptualize that obligation? Is it my need—my chiyuv becomes my responsibility, and we balance my obligations against my issurim—or do I step into the shoes of the person I'm helping, able to do for him whatever he could theoretically do for himself? This distinction is fundamental to understanding burial on Yom Tov.
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 6a
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.
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.
