A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) sometimes use "chayav" for a minor's obligations and sometimes only "mitzvah (מצוה)"? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: "chayav" means the child himself has a real obligation (e.g., sukkah, lulav), while "mitzvah" means only the parent's training duty exists. This yields major nafka minas—including why a mother must facilitate her child's rabbinic obligations even though she has no formal chinuch duty, and why Beis Din intervenes only when the father causes the child to violate Shabbos (שבת) (lo sa'asuru kol melacha), not when chinuch alone is at stake.
Rabbi Zweig delivers an in-depth analysis of the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s formulation of the mitzvah (מצוה) of chinuch (educating minors in mitzvos), focusing on a fundamental chakira that runs through fifteen different places in the Rambam's writings. The shiur opens by noting that in some contexts, the Rambam uses the language "chayav" (obligated) when describing a minor's relationship to mitzvos, while in other places he uses only "mitzvah al ha'av" (a commandment upon the father) or simply discusses training without the term "chayav." The core thesis is that there are two entirely different halachic structures at work. Where the Rambam says a minor is "chayav," he means the child himself has a real, albeit rabbinic, obligation to perform the mitzvah—the only difference between him and an adult is his age. Examples include sitting in a sukkah, taking a lulav, and wearing tzitzis. In these cases, the child's chiyuv is real and operative. In contrast, where the Rambam uses "mitzvah al ha'av l'chancho" without the term "chayav," the obligation rests solely on the parent to train the child; the child himself has no independent duty.
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!
Yoma 82a
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.
