A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What defines tashmish kedusha versus tashmish mitzvah (מצוה) when a bimah supports a sefer Torah (תורה)? The shiur analyzes Megillah 26b, contrasting Rashi (רש"י)'s position—that a bimah used primarily for kriyat haTorah remains tashmish mitzvah even when storing the sefer—with the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s reading that any support of the sefer outside of active reading becomes tashmish kedusha.
This shiur examines Megillah 26b, which discusses the halachic status of a kursaya (bimah or platform) used for a sefer Torah (תורה). The Gemara (גמרא) records that Rava initially thought the kursaya was tashmish de-tashmish (secondary to secondary) because one typically places a mapah (cloth covering) on it before putting the sefer Torah down. However, Rava revised his position upon seeing that sometimes people place the sefer Torah directly on the kursaya without a mapah, concluding it must be tashmish kedusha. Rabbi Zweig raises a fundamental difficulty with Rashi (רש"י)'s explanation: the Gemara appears to record Rava's factual ignorance and subsequent correction, which seems inappropriate for inclusion in the Gemara. Why should future generations receive reward for learning about Rava's mistaken observation? Additionally, the Gemara's language is imprecise—what does "sometimes" mean, and how can Rava's personal observation establish halacha (הלכה) for all communities?
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!
Megillah 26b
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.
