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.
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.
