No community start suggestion yet.
Why is a safek yom tov/safek chol not batel in a mixture, even when it's only safek d'rabbanan? The sugya explores the tension between safek d'rabbanan l'kulah and davar sheyesh lo matir. Rav Ashi introduces a novel principle: even by d'rabbanan, davar sheyesh lo matir is not batel—either because Chazal retain authority even in doubt, or because even d'rabbanan issurim involve intrinsic harm.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental sugya in Masechta Beitzah (3b-4a) dealing with the intersection of three key halachic principles: safek d'rabbanan l'kulah, bitul b'rov, and davar sheyesh lo matir. The Gemara (גמרא)'s question centers on why a safek yom tov/safek chol egg that falls into a mixture is not batel, given that safek d'rabbanan should be l'kulah. The shiur begins by examining the Gemara's initial difficulty. If we're dealing with safek yom tov/safek chol (an egg that may or may not have been laid on yom tov), this is only a d'rabbanan issue, and safek d'rabbanan is l'kulah. Therefore, why wouldn't the doubtful egg be batel in the mixture? The Gemara suggests the case must be discussing safek treifah instead, where there's a davar sheyesh lo matir—it will become permitted tomorrow.
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 3b-4a
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.
