No community start suggestion yet.
Why may a Sefer Torah (תורה) be rolled together—placing one section atop another—yet we cannot place other sefarim on top of it? The Gemara (גמרא)'s proof from kericha (rolling) rests on understanding that a Sefer Torah is inherently five separate sefarim, not one unified entity. The shiur develops this yesod through the concept of sefer kerisus and addresses the Rashba's challenge regarding Torah, Nevi'im, and Kesuvim.
This shiur examines Megillah 27a, focusing on the complex issue of placing one sefer on top of another (sefer agav sefer). The Gemara (גמרא) permits placing a Sefer Torah (תורה) section on top of another section when rolling it, and derives from this that one may place sefarim of equal kedusha together. However, several fundamental questions arise from this derivation. The primary difficulty is understanding the Gemara's logic. The Gemara brings a proof from lo efshar (impossibility)—that when rolling a Sefer Torah, it is impossible not to place one section atop another. Yet this principle of lo efshar does not appear explicitly in the poskim's formulation of the halacha (הלכה) regarding placing one sefer on another. Additionally, if the proof is from lo efshar, why isn't that condition required in all cases?
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!
Megillah 27a
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.
