A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Are the five inuyim on Yom Kippur positive commandments or prohibitions? The Gemara (גמרא) presents two approaches to understanding how eating/drinking relates to the other restrictions. This analysis reveals a fundamental chakira: if inuyim are mitzvos asei, chatzi shiur poses no problem and women might be exempt; if they're issurei asei, chatzi shiur applies and women are obligated.
The shiur opens a fundamental sugya in Masechta Yoma concerning the nature of the five inuyim (afflictions) on Yom Kippur: eating, drinking, washing, anointing, wearing leather shoes, and marital relations. The starting point is a Gemara (גמרא) that asks how the Mishna can use the term "asur" (forbidden) for eating and drinking when the punishment is kares, which normally triggers the language of "chayav" (liable). The Gemara offers two answers that lead to profoundly different understandings of the inuyim. According to the first teretz, the word "asur" teaches that even chatzi shiur (less than the minimum measure) of eating and drinking is biblically prohibited on Yom Kippur. This positions eating and drinking as having both a kares element (for a full shiur) and an element of issur that extends to the other inuyim. According to the second teretz, "asur" refers only to the other four inuyim, not to eating and drinking themselves, which are addressed separately as "chayav." This suggests that the makor (source) for the prohibition of the four inuyim derives from the prohibition of eating and drinking.
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 74b
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.
