A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is a reader not yotzei when reading Megillah from a scroll joined to other Kesuvim? The Rambam (רמב"ם) distinguishes two distinct mitzvos: kriyah (reading) and pirsumei nisa (publicizing the miracle). A reader fulfills pirsumei nisa only when his listeners do; if they don't hear properly or perceive it as mere Kriyas HaTorah, neither the reader nor the listeners are yotzei.
This shiur presents an intensive analysis of the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s halachos of Megillah reading, resolving several fundamental questions about the mitzvah (מצוה) of Megillah through a novel approach distinguishing between kriyah and pirsumei nisa. The Gemara (גמרא) in Megillah 19 discusses the case of someone reading from a Megillah that is written together with other Kesuvim (Megillah bein haksuvim). The Gemara initially suggests that even b'tzibbur this is not valid, but then retracts: "b'tzibbur shanu" - this invalidation only applies to public reading. The Ran holds that bedieved even b'tzibbur it's kosher, while other Rishonim, including the Gaon and Rosh, hold that b'yachid it's only good bedieved, while b'tzibbur it's invalid even bedieved. The Rambam appears to hold that l'chatchilah it's good for an individual, but even bedieved it's invalid for a tzibbur - a position that seems inconsistent with the Ran's logical principle.
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!
Megillah 19a
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.
