No community start suggestion yet.
Does food forbidden to eat automatically become forbidden to carry on Shabbos (שבת)? The shiur analyzes Tosafos (תוספות)'s two approaches: food as an excluded category from muktzeh versus food requiring preparation for both eating and carrying. The discussion resolves conflicts between the Rashba, Magen Avrohom, and Yam Shel Shlomo regarding second-day Yom Tov and safek muktzeh.
This shiur presents a fundamental analysis of the relationship between forbidden food and muktzeh on Shabbos (שבת), centered on Tosafos (תוספות) in Beitzah 2a. The central question is whether food that is assur b'achilah (forbidden to eat) automatically becomes assur b'tiltul (forbidden to carry), or whether these are two independent halachic requirements. Tosafos presents two distinct approaches. In the first teretz, Tosafos treats food as an excluded category from the laws of muktzeh entirely. According to this view, food was never subject to the gezeirah of muktzeh that applied to keilim. When food becomes forbidden to eat, it loses its status as food and potentially becomes muktzeh machmas atzmo (like stones), requiring specific designation to be carried. The Maharsha asks a fundamental question: why does the first teretz suggest that Beis Hillel's position creates ambiguity about tiltul, while the second teretz says agav (in passing) based on Beis Shammai's language?
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 2a
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.
