A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When did Avram become Avrohom and Sarai become Sarah? The Midrash reveals that while Hashem (ה׳) commanded the name changes before the bris milah, the actual transformation occurred only at the moment of circumcision. This creates a fascinating halachic framework where the prohibition against using the old names preceded the actual acquisition of the new ones.
This shiur analyzes Midrash Rabbah 18:18 on Parashas Korach, examining the intricate mechanics behind the name changes of Avram to Avrohom and Sarai to Sarah. The Midrash presents a complex picture: while Hashem (ה׳) told Avram his name would become Avrohom before the bris milah, the actual name change (chal hashem) occurred only at the moment of circumcision. The shiur explores the cryptic statement that Avrohom received his additional 'hei' from Sarah's name, with one opinion suggesting the 'yud' from Sarai split into two 'hei's - one for Avrohom and one for Sarah. Another view maintains the 'yud' remained intact and was transferred to Yehoshua (when Moshe changed Hoshea's name).
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!
Midrash Rabbah Korach 18:18
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.
