A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why was Rav Yosef permitted to learn from Targum when he was blind? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira: the prohibition of "divrei shebiksav lo omar ba'al peh" actually comprises two distinct halachos—one governing the tzurah (form) of Torah (תורה) itself, and another governing the act of Talmud (תלמוד) Torah. This distinction resolves contradictions across Tosafos (תוספות), Rashi (רש"י), and the parameters of eis la'asos l'Hashem (ה׳).
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Bava Kamma 3b regarding Rav Yosef's use of Targum for learning when he was blind. The central question is how Rav Yosef was permitted to learn Torah (תורה) orally when there is a principle that "divrei shebiksav lo omar ba'al peh" (written Torah may not be recited orally). Tosafos (תוספות) suggests the heter is eis la'asos l'Hashem (ה׳), but the Maharsha points out that the Gemara in Gittin indicates Rav Yosef does not hold of eis la'asos l'Hashem, creating an apparent contradiction. Rabbi Zweig develops a fundamental distinction by analyzing the pesukim and comparing the Gemara in Gittin with the Gemara in Temurah. He demonstrates that there are actually two separate halachos embedded in the prohibition: (1) A din in the cheftza (essence) of Torah itself—Torah shebiksav must remain in written form and Torah shebe'al peh must remain oral. This is a structural requirement about the tzurah of Torah. (2) A din in Talmud (תלמוד) Torah (the act of learning)—Torah shebiksav must be learned from a written text, and Torah shebe'al peh must be learned orally. When one learns Torah shebiksav orally, one violates the sanctity of Torah shebe'al peh by treating written Torah as if it were oral Torah.
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!
Bava Kamma 3b
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.
