A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Is eating chatzi shiur (less than the minimum measure) a quantitative lack in the act of eating, or a qualitative one? The shiur develops the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s shittah that chatzi shiur represents not merely "half the amount" but a distinct issur—a ta'am rather than achilah—derived from the ribui of "kol." This yesod has major nafka minas for shevu'os, bal ya'ir u'bal yeira'eh on Pesach (פסח), and ta'anis.
The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא) in Yoma 73b-74a concerning the issur of chatzi shiur (eating less than the minimum measure). The Gemara records a dispute between Rav Yochanan and Reish Lakish: Rav Yochanan holds chatzi shiur is assur because of "Chazal itztarfi" (it could combine to a full shiur), while Reish Lakish holds it is mutar. The Gemara ultimately cites a pasuk for the issur, leading Tosafos (תוספות) to ask: if there is a pasuk, why did the Gemara initially suggest the svara of "Chazal itztarfi"? Rabbi Zweig first surveys the major Rishonim. The Ran in Shevuos explains that chatzi shiur being assur min haTorah from a pasuk applies only where there is an issur nichnas (an actual food prohibition like chelev). For other cases (such as a shevu'ah not to eat), you need the svara of Chazal itztarfi. The Rambam (רמב"ם) in Hilchos Chametz u'Matzah rules that chatzi shiur of chametz on Pesach (פסח) is assur, citing a pasuk—but why is a pasuk needed if chatzi shiur is always assur min haTorah?
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!
Yoma 73b-74a
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.
