No community start suggestion yet.
Can rabbis completely uproot Torah (תורה) obligations, or do they merely prohibit performance while the mitzvah (מצוה) remains intact? The shiur analyzes the Rashba's treatment of bal tosif regarding shofar to prove that rabbinic authority stops short of full uprooting. This supports Rabbeinu Yonah's position that one still fulfills mitzvos even when performed against rabbinic directive.
This shiur explores fundamental questions about the scope of rabbinic authority through analysis of Brachos 2a and related sources. Rabbi Zweig examines two approaches to understanding yesh koach l'chachamim la'akor davar min haTorah - the power of sages to uproot matters from the Torah (תורה). The first approach, associated with the Ramban (רמב"ן), holds that the rabbis can actually uproot (oiker) the obligation of a mitzvah (מצוה) entirely, meaning there is no mitzvah and no fulfillment if performed. The second approach, championed by Rabbeinu Yonah, maintains that the rabbis merely prohibit the performance while the mitzvah obligation remains intact. Rabbi Zweig brings a crucial proof from the Rashba in Rosh Hashanah 27a regarding shofar blowing. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses blowing shofar both before and during the Shemoneh Esrei, with Tosafos (תוספות) questioning whether additional blowing constitutes bal tosif (adding to Torah commands). The Rashba responds that when sages command or forbid an action, there is no violation of bal tosif or bal tigra because one acts in fulfillment of the rabbinic directive rather than from personal intention to add or subtract from Torah law. The Tur argues against this proof, noting a fundamental distinction: regarding shofar on Shabbos (שבת) (the prohibition case), one violates bal tigra through passive non-performance, while bal tosif involves active commission. How can these serve as comparable proofs? Rabbi Zweig demonstrates that the Rashba's position only makes sense if he rejects the Ramban's approach. If the rabbis could completely uproot mitzvah obligations, then not blowing shofar on Shabbos wouldn't constitute bal tigra at all - there would simply be no obligation. The fact that the Rashba treats it as bal tigra proves he holds the mitzvah obligation remains while the rabbis merely prohibit performance. This analysis extends to practical applications in hilchos Krias Shema and korban laws. Rabbi Zweig explores how this dispute affects the status of one who performs the mitzvah despite rabbinic prohibition, citing Rav Akiva Eiger's position that one still fulfills the mitzvah even when acting against rabbinic directive. The shiur concludes by examining a complex passage in Tosefta regarding when korban meat becomes nosar (leftover), using this to further illuminate whether rabbinic restrictions constitute complete nullification of mitzvah obligations or merely prohibited performance of valid mitzvos.
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.
Up Next in this Series
Why does saying Ashrei three times daily guarantee a share in the World to Come? The verse 'umasbia l'chol chai ratzon' reveals that God provides not just sustenance but pleasure to all creation out of pure love. This recognition teaches us that even basic needs are expressions of divine chesed, creating the foundation for love-motivated service through both major and minor mitzvos.
Why does halacha forbid entering dangerous places if everything happens by Divine decree? The shiur examines the debate between Rashi and Tosfos on traveling at night, developing a fundamental distinction: Rashi holds one must avoid even deserved punishments that Hashem delays through mercy, while Tosfos holds the prohibition addresses self-inflicted harm through free will. This framework reveals how people rationalize self-destructive behavior as "hashgacha."
Why does the Gemara praise hospitality to scholars as a unique mitzvah rather than ordinary hachnasas orchim? The shiur distinguishes two mitzvahs: hachnasas orchim (providing for those in need) and connecting to talmidei chachamim (cleaving to God through scholars). Yisro's meal for the Jewish leaders wasn't charity—it was his way of bonding with those transformed by Torah, teaching that learning must fundamentally change who we are.
Brachos 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!
Should one learn Torah full-time trusting in Divine providence, or combine learning with work? The shiur distinguishes between Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai's approach of complete separation from worldly concerns versus Rabbi Shmuel's view that proper work itself becomes part of Torah. The key insight: true emunah means learning without demanding sustenance from either Hashem or community, unlike having a 'contract' expecting payment for learning.
