A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is Tzom Gedaliah different from the other fasts, and why does the Gemara (גמרא) emphasize who killed Gedaliah? Unlike the other fasts that commemorate divine punishment, Gedaliah possessed the unique spiritual power to rebuild the Beis Hamikdash, making his murder by human choice equivalent to destroying it. This teaches that during Aseret Yemei Teshuvah, each individual can access similar transformative power through direct connection with Hashem (ה׳).
This shiur explores the deep connection between Tzom Gedaliah and Aseret Yemei Teshuvah, beginning with an analysis of the primary Gemara (גמרא) in Rosh Hashanah 8b that discusses the four fasts mentioned in Zechariah. The Gemara identifies Tzom Hashvi'i as the third of Tishrei when Gedaliah ben Achikam was killed, stating that Yishmael ben Netaniah killed him, and concludes that 'the death of tzaddikim is equivalent to the burning of the Beis Hamikdash.' Rabbi Zweig addresses several difficulties with this Gemara. First, why does the Gemara specify who killed Gedaliah when it doesn't ask who destroyed the Beis Hamikdash or laid siege to Jerusalem? Second, if the death of tzaddikim equals the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash, why don't we fast for every tzaddik who dies? The Rishonim (Maharsha and Pnei Yehoshua) offer different approaches, but both encounter significant problems in their explanations.
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!
Rosh Hashanah 8b
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.
