No community start suggestion yet.
Why can the takana of kriyat haTorah on yamim tovim change over time despite being attributed to Moshe Rabbeinu? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction between two types of authority held by Beis Din HaGadol: judicial/Torah (תורה) authority requiring Lishkas HaGazis, and legislative/executive authority representing Klal Yisrael. Moshe's takana of reading parshas hamoadot derives from his role as representative of the people—explaining why later generations can modify it (einan nohagin) without violating the principle that a beis din cannot uproot a predecessor's ruling.
The shiur analyzes Megillah 30b and the Gemara (גמרא)'s presentation of kriyat haTorah on yamim tovim. The Mishna states that on Pesach (פסח) we read parshas hamoadot from Toras Kohanim, on Shavuos from either Devarim or parshas korban bikurim, and on Sukkos (סוכות) from parshas hamoadot in Mishneh Torah (תורה). The Ran asks why the cycle switches—if Pesach uses Toras Kohanim and Shavuos uses Devarim, why does Sukkos revert to Toras Kohanim? Several textual difficulties emerge, including why the Mishna details each day's reading for Sukkos but not for Pesach, and why the pasuk "vayidaber Moshe es mo'adei Hashem (ה׳) el bnei Yisrael" appears to justify both holiday readings and the unrelated laws of Shabbos (שבת) mincha and Monday/Thursday readings. The Gemara derives from this pasuk that Moshe established two takanos: she'yihyu korin kol echad v'echad bizmanon (reading the appropriate parsha on each yom tov) and she'yihyu sho'alin v'dorshin inyanon shel chag (teaching the laws of each festival on that festival). Rashi (רש"י) explains that the pasuk teaches both the obligation to read parshas hamoadot on each festival and the requirement to teach hilchos Pesach on Pesach, hilchos Atzeres on Shavuos, etc. Yet the Gemara states "einan nohagin ka'avah"—the current custom differs. The Tur asks how different readings could be established for different festivals if all derive from the same pasuk. More fundamentally, how can later generations simply change a takanas Moshe without requiring a beis din gadol b'chochma ub'minyan to uproot it?
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!
Megillah 30b
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.
