A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna require the Meturgeman to translate only one pasuk at a time? The shiur develops a fundamental yesod that translation must be considered "reading from the text" (mikra b'chtav), not oral Torah (תורה) (ba'al peh). When limited to one pasuk, the Meturgeman is still reading from what he just heard; more than that becomes mere memory and violates the prohibition of reciting Torah Shebiksav ba'al peh.
This shiur on Megillah 23b-24a analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of the Meturgeman (translator) in Kriyat HaTorah and resolves several fundamental difficulties in Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם). The shiur begins with Rashi's statement that the Meturgeman cannot make more than one pasuk at a time, otherwise "lo nafkan min halachos" (the halachot don't emerge properly). The language is strange, and the rationale unclear. The Rambam's presentation is even more puzzling: he states twice that only one pasuk may be read to the Meturgeman, first when describing the original minhag instituted by Ezra, and then again as a separate din that "ein hakorei rashai likrot la-Meturgeman yeser me-pasuk echad" — seemingly a redundant restatement. The shiur then examines the underlying sugya in Sukkah 34b and related places. The Gemara discusses whether Kriyat Shema can be recited in any language or only in Hebrew, and whether "kol haTorah kulah b'chol lashon nemrah" (the entire Torah (תורה) may be said in any language). Rashi explains this refers to "likrot b'beit hakneset" — reading the Torah in shul. The problem: how can a rabbinic institution (Kriyat HaTorah) determine whether a Torah-level obligation (Kriyat Shema) requires Hebrew? Rashi seems to be saying that if Torah reading in shul can be done in any language, then Kriyat Shema would need a special pasuk (ve'hayu) to restrict it to Hebrew.
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 23b-24a
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.
