A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How does the sanctity of the destroyed Beis Hamikdash endure? The shiur develops the principle that "V'shamosi mikdashechem" establishes that even in desolation the Mikdash remains a place of avodah—a kula, not a chumra. The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s reading of the hekesh to Shabbos (שבת) depends on this foundational din, and both yirah and kavod continue to apply to the destroyed sanctuary and to a Beis HaKnesses even in churban.
This shiur examines the Gemara (גמרא) in Megillah 28a regarding the sanctity of a destroyed Beis Hamikdash and Beis HaKnesses, focusing on the pasuk "V'shamosi mikdashechem" (I will make desolate your sanctuaries). The central question is how the various halachos of respecting these holy places apply even after their destruction. Rabbi Zweig begins with the difficulty posed by the Tur and Tur Even. The Gemara in Brachos teaches that according to Rabbi Yehuda, certain restrictions about facing the Mikdash when using the bathroom do not apply when the Beis Hamikdash is not standing. Yet in Megillah, Rabbi Yehuda says that even b'shas churban (during destruction), the sanctity remains. The Tur Even suggests that "V'shamosi mikdashechem" is merely an asmachta (Rabbinic support text), not a true Torah (תורה) source, because otherwise the din should apply equally in both cases. He brings another proof: the Gemara learns that the laws of the Mikdash apply today through a hekesh (textual comparison) between Shabbos (שבת) and Mikdash. If we already had a Torah source from "V'shamosi mikdashechem," why would we need this hekesh?
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!
Megillah 28a
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.
