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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
