No community start suggestion yet.
How much sirtut (line ruling) is needed for different holy writings? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira distinguishing between sirtut required by the object itself (sefer Torah (תורה), mezuzah, tefillin) and sirtut required for writing Torah text, resolving contradictions in the Rambam (רמב"ם), Rama, and Tosfos regarding whether sirtut is needed on every line or only at the top.
This shiur explores the halachos of sirtut—the line ruling required when writing holy texts—analyzing apparent contradictions in the Rambam (רמב"ם), Rama, and Tosfos. The initial problem arises from the Rama's two seemingly conflicting rulings: in Hilchos Tefillin the Rama permits only a top line per Rabbeinu Tam, while in Hilchos Sefer Torah (תורה) he requires sirtut on all four sides. Similarly, Tosfos states that tefillin need only a line on top, yet later cites Mesechta Sofrim requiring sirtut on all four sides. The Rambam presents multiple difficulties. In Perek Alef of Hilchos Sefer Torah he rules that a sefer Torah cannot be written without sirtut, yet only in Perek Zayin does he specify that three words may be written without sirtut but not four. Additionally, in Hilchos Yibum V'Chalitzah the Rambam permits writing only two words without sirtut, contradicting his three-word allowance elsewhere. The Kesef Mishneh struggles to reconcile these positions.
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 6b
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.
