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.
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.
