No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a clay flower pot not require a hole to obligate terumah and ma'aser, while a wooden pot does? The shiur analyzes the fundamental machloket between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות): whether atzitz nakuv works because the pot becomes an extension of the ground itself (Rashi's view of clay as earth), or because the hole enables nutrients to flow from the ground below (Tosafos's absorption theory).
This shiur explores Gittin 7b and the sugya of atzitz nakuv—a perforated flower pot—and the halachic principles that determine when produce grown in such a pot is obligated in terumah and ma'aser. The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that a pot with a hole creates a connection to the ground, obligating the produce, while one without a hole does not. Rashi (רש"י) explains that a clay vessel (kli cheres) does not require a hole because clay itself is considered earth, making the pot's contents automatically connected to the ground. Tosafos (תוספות) challenges this, citing the Yerushalmi and Tosefta which indicate that clay prevents growth unless perforated, and argues that wooden pots absorb moisture better than clay. Rabbi Zweig develops a fundamental chakira to resolve the apparent contradiction. He proposes two possible yesodos for atzitz nakuv: (1) The hole makes the pot itself an extension of the ground—essentially creating one continuous stratum of earth; or (2) The hole enables the plant to draw nutrients directly from the ground below, even though it grows in the pot. This distinction determines whether we view the plant as growing "from the ground" or "in the pot that is connected to the ground."
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 7b
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.
