A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How can a shevuah prohibiting eating create an issur on less than a kezayis when yesterday that amount was permitted? The shiur distinguishes between chatzi shiur as an issur ta'am (taste) versus an issur achilah (eating), arguing that a shevuah transforms a half-measure into a complete act of eating — like a beriah — thereby creating a new prohibition category entirely distinct from the Torah (תורה)'s underlying chatzi shiur issur.
This shiur is the second part of an analysis examining three fundamental approaches to understanding the issur of chatzi shiur (eating less than the standard measure). The Gemara (גמרא) in Yoma 73b discusses whether chatzi shiur is a gezeiras hakasuv (scriptural decree), a cheftza issur (object-based prohibition), or — according to the Rambam (רמב"ם) as understood by the Maharil — an issur achilah that applies only to prohibitions that were not permitted yesterday. The shiur focuses on two seemingly contradictory rulings in the Rambam. First, the Rambam (Hilchos Shevuos 5:7) rules that one can make a shevuah on chatzi shiur of neveilos and treifos, creating a new prohibition even though chatzi shiur is already Biblically prohibited. Second, the Rambam (Hilchos Shevuos 4:2 and Hilchos Nedarim 1) rules that when someone takes a shevuah not to eat, there is an issur chatzi shiur — one is prohibited from eating even less than a kezayis. Both rulings are extraordinarily difficult according to the Maharil's principle that chatzi shiur only applies to prohibitions involving a cheftza that was always prohibited, not something that was permitted yesterday.
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
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.
