A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When milah requires warming water on Shabbos (שבת) (for after the procedure), are you mechuyav in milah at all? The Ramban (רמב"ן) holds you're chayav but oines; warming water later for pikuach nefesh removes the obstacle. The Baal HaMaor holds differently: a mitzvah (מצוה) requiring chilul Shabbos is not a chiyuv—there's no mitzvah. The shiur develops that machshirei mitzvah means the melacha would create the chiyuv itself, and an aveirah cannot generate a mitzvah.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute between the Ramban (רמב"ן) and the Baal HaMaor regarding milah on Shabbos (שבת) when hot water is needed after the procedure. The standard reading assumes the machlokes is whether one may put oneself into a situation requiring later chilul Shabbos that will be permitted due to pikuach nefesh. Rabbi Zweig argues this misses the depth of the dispute, which centers on the very definition of machshirei mitzvah (מצוה) and whether a chiyuv mitzvah exists when fulfilling it requires an aveirah. The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that one may board a ship on erev Shabbos even though sailing on Shabbos will occur, because it's for a mitzvah purpose. The Ramban applies this to milah: when you lack hot water for after the procedure, you may perform the milah on Shabbos because warming water afterward is permitted due to pikuach nefesh (the infant becomes a choleh she'yesh bo sakanah). The Baal HaMaor forbids this. The question is: why?
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!
Gittin 8b-9a
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.
