A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why did the Gemara (גמרא) institute two days of Rosh Hashanah when witnesses arrived late? The shiur analyzes Beitzah 5a, contrasting Rashi (רש"י)'s view (the first day remained a safek) with Tosafot's approach (it became a vadai Yom Tov), and explores the resulting machlokes Ramban (רמב"ן)-Rambam (רמב"ם) over the issur hashlama—whether it's a deficiency in the Korban Tamid itself or in what's brought afterward.
The shiur opens with a fundamental question from Beitzah 5a: Before the Takana that established two days of Rosh Hashanah, what happened when witnesses (eidim) came late—after the time when Beis Din would no longer accept testimony (such as after Mincha)? The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where the thirtieth of Elul began as a safek Yom Tov, but once the deadline passed without witnesses, it became clear no eidim would come. What status did that day have from that point forward? Rabbi Zweig presents two fundamental approaches to understanding the Gemara. According to one reading, after the deadline when no more eidim could be accepted (let's say 3:00 PM), they continued to observe the day me'sufek—maintaining the same safek status they had been observing all day. This would mean they remained noheig safek Yom Tov even though they now knew eidim weren't coming. According to an alternative reading, once the time passed when eidim could no longer be accepted, the day became vadai chol—they were fully noheig like a weekday, even putting on tefillin, because the absence of eidim proved definitively it wasn't Yom Tov.
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!
Beitzah 5a
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.
