A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) prohibit singing with wine after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: parties and celebrations are inherently about self-promotion and asserting one's own malchus. When the Beis Hamikdash stood, Hashem (ה׳)'s presence contained this tendency, but without it, celebration becomes a diminution of Hashem's kingship—and that's precisely what the prohibition addresses.
The shiur explores the Gemara (גמרא)'s prohibition against drinking wine accompanied by song ("b'shir lo yishtu yayin") after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash. Rabbi Zweig begins by analyzing the apparent contradiction in the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s formulation in Hilchos Taaniyos 5:14. The Rambam presents two distinct prohibitions: one based on "im eshkachech Yerushalayim" (remembering the destruction) and another based on "al tismach b'gil yisrael" (not celebrating in the manner of gentile celebration). This appears to contradict the Gemara in Gittin which states that singing without instrumental accompaniment is permitted, with only instrumental music ("manna") being prohibited. The key to understanding this contradiction lies in how the Rambam reads the word "manna." While Rashi (רש"י) interprets "manna" as referring to musical instruments (kinor), the Rambam understands it as referring to the vessel or manner of drinking—the kli shtiya, the ritual of toasting and celebration. According to this reading, the prohibition is not primarily about musical accompaniment but about the nature of the celebration itself. When wine is accompanied by song in a celebratory context ("al hayayin"), it becomes an act of self-promotion and self-celebration.
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!
Gittin 7a
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.
