A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What is the nature of educating children to fast on Yom Kippur—are we training them in the mitzvah (מצוה) of inui (affliction) or keeping them from the issur of eating? The shiur analyzes the machlokes between Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) on ein ma'anin, explores whether chinuch applies to lo sa'asehs or only to asehs, and resolves how the Rambam calibrates partial fasting as a legitimate kiyum of inui for children.
The shiur opens with the Mishna's ruling that tinokot (children) are not ma'anin on Yom Kippur, but we are mechanech them two or three years before their bar/bat mitzvah (מצוה) age so they become accustomed to the mitzvos. Rashi (רש"י) interprets ein ma'anin osom as "ein chayavim limnoa me-hem maichol"—we are not obligated to prevent the child from eating. According to Rashi, if the child wants to eat, you're not required to stop him, though you may; if he doesn't want to eat, certainly you need not force him to eat. The Rambam (רמב"ם), however, reads ein ma'anin literally: it is forbidden (asur) to prevent the child from eating below age nine, because there is a danger (sakana) involved. The Rambam holds that when a young child wants to eat and is denied, he becomes very upset, which can pose a health risk. However, if the child simply isn't eating on his own, there is no sakana—no obligation to feed him exists. This reflects a fundamental disagreement: Rashi holds you're not chayav to be mechanech below nine, while the Rambam holds it is actively prohibited due to sakana.
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 82a
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.
