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.
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.