A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) distinguish between foods "not fit for eating" (einan ra'uyin le'achilah) and foods "not fit for human consumption" (einan ra'uyin le'achilas adam)? The shiur develops a fundamental chiluk: by eating, only things with some pleasure warrant makas mardus, but by drinking, anything that relieves dehydration triggers the issur, even if not fit for human consumption. This explains three categories for eating versus two for drinking.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental question in the laws of Yom Kippur regarding foods and liquids that are not fit for consumption. The starting point is a difficulty in the Tur (Yoreh Deah 12) and Beis Yosef's attempt to resolve it. The core issue is why the Rambam (רמב"ם) appears to distinguish between different categories of non-kosher foods when discussing liability on Yom Kippur. Rabbi Zweig demonstrates that the Rambam in Hilchos Shevitat Asor (Perek 2, Halachos 5-7) actually establishes three distinct categories for eating but only two for drinking. For eating: (1) foods fit for human consumption (ochlin hara'uyin le'adam) carry kareis liability; (2) foods fit for eating but not for human consumption (ochlin she'einan ra'uyin le'adam) are exempt from kareis but carry makas mardus; (3) things not fit for eating at all (einan ra'uyin le'achilah) are completely exempt with no makas mardus. The Rambam signals this structure by using different terminology—calling the third category "kos" rather than "achilah."
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 81b
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.
