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.
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.
