A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Are the five inuyim (afflictions) on Yom Kippur intrinsic prohibitions or failures to fulfill a positive mitzvah (מצוה)? The shiur develops a fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י), Ran, and Rambam (רמב"ם) on whether washing, anointing, etc. are forbidden as issur aseh (prohibition) or missed opportunities to fulfill shevisa (rest). This chakira reshapes the heter for kala, melech, and chayah, explains why a gadol may wash a child, and reveals why women are obligated despite shezman grama.
The shiur explores the Mishna's ruling that permits certain activities on Yom Kippur—a kala may wash her face, a melech may anoint himself, and a chayah may wash wounds—and analyzes the fundamental dispute among Rishonim about the nature of Yom Kippur's five inuyim (washing, anointing, wearing shoes, marital relations, and eating/drinking). The Gemara (גמרא) on Yoma 73b-76a discusses why these activities are permitted. Rashi (רש"י) suggests they are permitted outright, but doesn't provide a clear reason. The Ran develops a comprehensive theory: the five inuyim are d'oraisa (biblical) prohibitions that were "mosur l'chachamim"—handed over to the sages to define. Since it's not explicit in the Torah (תורה), the Chachamim have the authority to clarify that the issur only applies when done l'shem ta'anug (for pleasure). Therefore, a kala washing for her husband's approval, or a melech washing to maintain royal dignity, are not done for pleasure and are thus permitted. According to the Ran, these are genuine issur d'oraisa prohibitions, but with the caveat that they only apply when the act is done for personal enjoyment.
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-76a
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.
