A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When Jews in chutz la'aretz knew the calendar computation but Beis Din still sanctified Rosh Chodesh by witnesses, should they have kept two days Yom Tov? The shiur analyzes Rav Assi's fundamental safek—was Yom Tov Sheini instituted only because of doubt (shtei kedushas) or also as a permanent takanah (kedusha achas)?
The shiur opens with a close textual analysis of Rashi (רש"י)'s position regarding Rav Assi's safek about Yom Tov Sheini. The fundamental question is: Once communities in chutz la'aretz became expert in the calculations of kvias hachodesh (establishing when the new moon appears), yet Beis Din in Eretz Yisrael still sanctified the month based on testimony of witnesses (al pi re'iya), what was the status of the second day of Yom Tov? Rav Assi had a safek whether it was kedusha achas (one sanctity—the second day is ordinary weekday) or shtei kedushas (two separate sanctities—the second day also has Yom Tov status). The difficulty in Rashi is that Rashi seems to suggest the problem arose precisely *because* people became experts in kvias ha'yarach. This appears backwards: if people know when Rosh Chodesh ought to be, that should resolve their doubt and allow them to keep only one day, not create a problem requiring a takanah. The shiur resolves this by explaining that even when Beis Din sanctified the month through witnesses, the mathematical reality of when the new moon appeared was knowable. People in chutz la'aretz could calculate when Rosh Chodesh *should* be with a high degree of certainty, and would naturally assume that when witnesses appeared in Yerushalayim, their testimony aligned with that calculation.
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 4b
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.
