A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How can chatzi shiur be prohibited on Yom Kippur when Yom Kippur's prohibition is lo se'uneh (affliction), not achilah (eating)? The shiur resolves this through a fundamental distinction: chatzi shiur on Yom Kippur is not about violating lo se'uneh, but about nullifying the mitzvat aseh of shevisa (cessation) from eating and drinking—a completely different framework that transforms our understanding of inui on Yom Kippur.
The shiur opens with a fundamental difficulty posed by the Maran Chov and Tosfos on Yom Kippur: The Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether chatzi shiur (less than the prohibited measure) is forbidden on Yom Kippur according to the dispute between Rav Yochanan and Reish Lakish. Rav Yochanan holds chatzi shiur is prohibited min haTorah, while Reish Lakish holds it is permitted min haTorah (though prohibited derabbanan). The difficulty is stark: how can there be an issur of chatzi shiur on Yom Kippur when the prohibition of Yom Kippur is lo se'uneh (affliction), not a standard issur achilah (eating prohibition)? By other issurim like chelev, we can learn chatzi shiur from the concept that each molecule is prohibited. But on Yom Kippur, the issur is inui nefesh—afflicting the soul—not consuming a prohibited substance. How can we derive chatzi shiur from chelev when the fundamental nature of the prohibition is different? The Rambam (רמב"ם) in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot rules like Rav Yochanan that chatzi shiur is prohibited min haTorah. Yet in Hilchot Chametz U'Matzah, the Rambam cites a specific pasuk for chatzi shiur by chametz, and the Kesef Mishne asks: if we already have a general principle of chatzi shiur asur min haTorah, why do we need a special pasuk for chametz? The Mishna LaMelech answers that chatzi shiur only applies to something that was always prohibited, like chelev. But chametz, which was permitted before Pesach (פסח) and will be permitted after, cannot have the same din of chatzi shiur without a specific pasuk. This deepens our question about Yom Kippur: if even chametz needs special justification, certainly Yom Kippur—where the issur is lo se'uneh, not achilah—requires explanation.
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 73b
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.
