A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When found matzos might have been bought with ma'aser sheini money, can we use statistical probability to determine their status? The Rivash's principle distinguishes between real mathematical probabilities (like birth ratios) versus mere speculation about human behavior. This creates a fundamental yesod about when halacha (הלכה) recognizes statistical reasoning.
This shiur analyzes Gemara (גמרא) Pesachim 7a focusing on the case of matzos found in Jerusalem before Pesach (פסח) and the halachic question of their status. The Gemara discusses whether such matzos can be assumed to have been purchased with ma'aser sheini money, which would affect their permissibility for consumption. The discussion centers on the principle of 'samech miyut la-palga' - relying on a minority factor combined with a majority to create a new majority. Rashi (רש"י) explains that most people in Jerusalem buy animals with ma'aser sheini money from those who came up for the festivals. Once the animal is purchased, the kedushah transfers to the animal and the money becomes chullin (ordinary). The question arises whether found money fell from the seller (now chullin) or the buyer (still ma'aser sheini).
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!
Pesachim 7a
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.
