A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Is training a child to fast on Yom Kippur merely practice for adulthood, or does a katan have a rabbinic obligation in the mitzvah (מצוה) itself? The shiur analyzes the machloket between Rav Yochanan, Rav Huna, and Rav Chisda on whether sho'os (partial fasting) and hashlama (completing the fast) constitute chinuch d'Rabanan or simple preparation. The distinction reshapes when one must physically stop a child from eating and whether other inuyim apply.
This shiur explores a fundamental sugya in Yoma 82a concerning the obligation to train children (katanïm) to fast on Yom Kippur. The Gemara (גמרא) presents three opinions: Rav Chisda holds three years of training for a healthy child (bari) and two for a weak child (chola); Rav Huna holds two and two respectively; and Rav Yochanan holds that there is no rabbinic obligation of hashlama (completing the fast) at all—only sho'os (partial fasting) as preparation. Rabbi Zweig begins by framing the core question: What is the nature of this machloket? Is it a dispute about medical capacity—whether a child can physically handle fasting at certain ages—or is it a halachic dispute about the nature of chinuch (education in mitzvos)? He argues emphatically that the Amoraim cannot be disagreeing about medical facts; rather, they dispute the legal status of a katan's fasting.
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.
