A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) say "chayav" for some mitzvos a child does (lulav, sukkah, tzitzis, bircas hamazon) but only "mechanech" for others (tefillin, kriyas shema, matzah)? The shiur develops a yesod: "chayav" means the child performs full kiyum hamitzvah; "mechanech" means training only in the maaseh mitzvah (מצוה), not the complete kiyum. This distinction creates practical nafka minos in what criteria must be met for the child's mitzvah performance.
The shiur opens by cataloging approximately fifteen instances in the Rambam (רמב"ם) where he discusses the obligation to train children in mitzvos. In some places (Shevisas Asor, Megillah, Kriyas Shema, Tefillin), the Rambam uses the language of "mechanech" (training) the child "kedei lechancho bemitzvahs" (in order to train him in mitzvos). In other places (Lulav, Sukkah, Tzitzis, Bircas Hamazon), the Rambam uses strikingly different language: "chayav belulav," "chayav besukkah," "chayav betzitzis," "chayav bebirchas hamazon" - the child is "obligated" rather than merely being "trained." Rabbi Zweig notes this perplexing inconsistency demands explanation, especially since the Rambam could have used uniform language throughout. Building on last week's distinction between two types of chinuch - chinuch leshos (gradual training) and chinuch vehashlamah (completing the mitzvah (מצוה)) - Rabbi Zweig proposes a fundamental yesod. When the Rambam says "mechanech," he means the child is only being trained in the maaseh mitzvah (the physical act of the mitzvah) but is not achieving full kiyum hamitzvah (halachic fulfillment of the mitzvah). When the Rambam says "chayav," he means the child is actually performing the mitzvah exactly as an adult would, achieving genuine kiyum hamitzvah, not merely practicing the mechanics.
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 82a
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.
