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.
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.
