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.
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.
