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.
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.
