No community start suggestion yet.
What is the nature of the issur hachana—preparing from Yom Tov to Shabbos (שבת)? Rashi (רש"י) learns it's fundamentally a lack of preparation from chol (a muktzah issue), while Tosafot views it as an active prohibition. This dispute shapes their approaches to eruv tavshilin, chayil (the possibility of unexpected guests), and whether hachana applies even through heavenly agency.
This shiur analyzes Beitzah 2b, focusing on the fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot regarding the nature of the prohibition of hachana (preparing from Yom Tov for Shabbos (שבת)). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses Rava's position that the Mishna addresses Yom Tov that falls before Shabbos, establishing that one may not prepare from Yom Tov for Shabbos. A central question emerges: why is the prohibition called "hachana" rather than simply muktzah, and how does this issur apply even when the preparation occurs through bi'dei shamayim (heavenly agency) rather than human hands? Rashi's approach understands hachana not as an active prohibition of preparing, but rather as an issur rooted in the lack of proper designation from chol (weekday). According to Rashi, muktzah de'oraisa requires that food be mentally designated for eating before Shabbos. While uchlah d'afras (assuming it will be eaten) may satisfy the requirement that one intends to eat the object, it does not address how the object will be eaten. When an egg is laid on Yom Tov, even though one intended to eat it (uchlah d'afras), the form in which it will be eaten—as an egg rather than as part of a chicken—was not prepared from the weekday. This lack of proper designation from chol is what makes it forbidden, not the act of preparation itself.
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 2b
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.
