A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) rule that produce from Eretz Yisrael taken to Surya requires terumah mid'rabanan, but produce taken to Egypt or Shinar does not? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: Yehoshua's kibbush established God's sovereignty (kedusha rishona), while Ezra's return created Jewish national ownership (kedusha shniya). Surya, conquered individually by Dovid, represents chazaka—Jewish ownership—making it uniquely subject to terumah even mid'rabanan.
The shiur examines a fundamental machlokes between the Rambam (רמב"ם) and the Raavad in Hilchos Terumas (Mishneh Torah (תורה), Bikkurim 1:22) regarding produce that grew in Eretz Yisrael and was then taken outside its borders. The Rambam rules that such produce is exempt from terumah and ma'asros when taken to chutz la'aretz, but obligated mid'rabanan when taken to Surya (Syria). The Raavad challenges this, arguing that if produce is obligated mid'rabanan in lands adjacent to Eretz Yisrael (like Egypt and Shinar), then produce that actually grew in Eretz Yisrael should certainly be obligated mid'rabanan everywhere in chutz la'aretz, not just in Surya. Rabbi Zweig develops a fundamental distinction to resolve this machlokes. According to the Rambam, there are two fundamentally different types of rabbinic obligations in terumah. The rabbinic obligations in lands like Egypt, Shinar, Ammon, and Moav are obligations on "peiros chutz la'aretz"—a new rabbinic enactment that created chiyuvim on produce of those lands because of their proximity to Eretz Yisrael. But produce that grew in Eretz Yisrael has no connection to those lands, so there is no obligation when it is taken there. Surya, however, is different. Surya is considered "peiros Eretz Yisrael mid'rabanan"—because Surya itself has a status of Eretz Yisrael on a rabbinic level, produce from Eretz Yisrael retains its obligation there.
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!
Gittin 8a
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.
