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.
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.
