A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why can a king wash his face but not wear shoes on Yom Kippur? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira in the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s approach to the five inuyim: each contains both an issur aseh and a mitzvah (מצוה) aseh at different madreigot. The Chachamim can be matir a mitzvah through shev v'al ta'aseh, but cannot uproot an issur—explaining why washing the face (mitzvah-level) is permitted for a king, while wearing shoes (issur-level) is not.
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s approach to the five inuyim (afflictions) of Yom Kippur, particularly focusing on rechitza (washing) and sichah (anointing), through examination of the Rambam's lashon and structure in Hilchos Shvisas Asor. Rabbi Zweig develops an original framework for understanding the relationship between different levels of prohibition on Yom Kippur. The shiur begins with the classic kashya of the Tosafos (תוספות) Yom Kippur: Why is a king permitted to wash his face (rechitzas panim) but not wear shoes on Yom Kippur? If both are inuyim required by the day, why should there be a difference based on kavod hamelech (the king's dignity)?
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 77b-78a
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.
