A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When milah is performed on Shabbos (שבת) for a sick child requiring warm water, is warming the water considered a justified melacha or does it exempt the mitzvah (מצוה) of milah entirely? The shiur analyzes when an issur is docheh (pushed aside) versus when the mitzvah itself is patur, exploring the Baal HaMaor-Ramban (רמב"ן) debate and its implications for marbeh b'shiur in kitzur.
The shiur opens with a complex analysis of performing milah on Shabbos (שבת) when a child is sick and water must be warmed. The central question is whether warming water on Shabbos for milah renders the milah itself non-binding (patur from the mitzvah (מצוה)), or whether it is simply an issur that must be pushed aside (docheh) for the sake of pikuach nefesh. According to the Baal HaMaor, if milah can only be performed by being mechallel Shabbos to warm the water, the milah itself does not override Shabbos (ain docheh Shabbos) because one is not yet obligated in the mitzvah—warming the water is permitted only due to sakana (danger), not the mitzvah of milah itself. The Ramban (רמב"ן) disagrees, arguing that the obligation to perform milah remains, but the means are restricted by other halachic considerations. Rabbi Zweig develops a fundamental distinction: when the issur preventing the mitzvah is within the mitzvah itself (e.g., v'chai bahem—"you shall live by them," which exempts mitzvos in cases of pikuach nefesh), one is patur from the mitzvah entirely. But when the issur is external (such as chilul Shabbos as a separate prohibition), one remains obligated in the mitzvah, and the issur is merely docheh (set aside). This framework resolves the challenge of the Shagas Aryeh regarding milah performed before the eighth day (kodem zman): if the child is actually a ben shivah (seven-day-old) mistakenly thought to be a ben shemoneh, and milah is performed on Shabbos, why isn't one obligated in a korban for chilul Shabbos? According to the Ramah, milah kodem zman does not require hatafas dam bris, suggesting one is yotzei the mitzvah. The Shagas Aryeh asks: if so, this should be a case of lo ya'aseh v'aseh mitzvah, yet one is patur from a korban. Rabbi Zweig suggests that milah kodem zman means one is not yet obligated in the mitzvah at all—there is no chiyuv yet, and therefore no mitzvah to fulfill, making it fundamentally different from milah she'lo bizmanah (after the eighth day), where the obligation exists but is simply blocked by Shabbos.
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 8b
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.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
