A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) require a special pasuk to permit removing baheres during bris milah, even according to Rabbi Shimon who normally permits unintended consequences? Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation suggests the prohibition only applies with kavana l'tahara, creating a fundamental tension about whether cutting baheres without purification intent constitutes a biblical violation at all.
The shiur provides a detailed analysis of Masechta Shabbos (שבת) 133a, focusing on the complex issue of kavana (intention) when removing baheres during circumcision. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a fundamental question: when removing baheres (a skin disease) incidentally during bris milah, what level of intention is required? The discussion begins with examining the positions of Rabbi Yehuda versus Rabbi Shimon regarding davar she'eino miskaven (an unintended consequence). According to Rabbi Shimon, normally unintended consequences are permitted, but the Gemara suggests that even according to Rabbi Shimon, one needs a pasuk to permit removing baheres during bris milah. The shiur extensively analyzes Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation, which appears in three places and consistently emphasizes that the prohibition only applies when one has kavana l'tahara (intention for ritual purification). Rashi's position seems to be that merely cutting off baheres without intention for tahara would not constitute a biblical violation. This interpretation creates several difficulties: if cutting baheres without kavana l'tahara is not prohibited, why is it considered psik reisha (inevitable consequence)? The analysis explores whether the issur of cutting baheres requires specific intent for purification, or whether any cutting constitutes the violation. The shiur examines various approaches to resolve these contradictions, including the possibility that there's a distinction between Lo Sa'aseh (negative commandment) violations and Aseh (positive commandment) violations, where perhaps one needs kavana l'tahara only for the Aseh component. Another approach discussed is whether Rashi's interpretation reflects a fundamental machloket (dispute) between Abaye and Rava regarding the nature of the issur itself. The discussion also touches on practical applications, such as the case of a mohel acting as a shaliach (agent) and whether the same kavana requirements apply. The shiur concludes by acknowledging the complexity of reconciling Rashi's interpretation with the straightforward reading of the Gemara, suggesting that further study of the classical commentaries would be beneficial to fully resolve these issues.
Shabbos 133a
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.
