A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How can angels have free will if they're pure intelligence with perfect knowledge of God? The Gemara (גמרא) Gittin 7b explores the paradox: angels sin when clothed in physical bodies, because body and intellect war in them—whereas by humans, body and sechel can unify. Naaseh v'nishma means achieving the angel's unified state where mitzvos become our total being.
Rabbi Zweig opens with a perplexing Gemara (גמרא) in Gittin 7b about angels protesting when Hashem (ה׳) removed the crowns from the Jewish people after the sin of the Golden Calf. The angels asked: "Why are you taking away their crowns?" This raises fundamental questions about the nature of angels and their relationship to sin and free will. The Rambam (רמב"ם) in Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah describes three categories of creation: physical matter with form (humans, animals, minerals), celestial bodies with unchanging form, and pure spiritual beings with no physicality whatsoever—the angels. Angels are pure intelligence, separated from each other not by physical space but by levels of spiritual reality. The Rambam lists ten levels of angels from Chayos (highest) down to Ishim (lowest), and states that even the lowest angel's awareness is beyond what the highest human being clothed in physical matter can achieve.
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!
Gittin 7b
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.
