A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why can three judges redeem a consecrated slave when the Torah (תורה) requires ten? The shiur distinguishes between Yesh Koach Chacham La'akor (rabbinic power to suspend mitzvos passively) and Hefker Beis Din Hefker (sovereign power to transfer property ownership). The Chachamim's authority here stems from their role as ultimate owners of communal property, not from suspending Torah law.
The shiur addresses a fundamental question raised by Tosafos (תוספות) and the Tur Even on Megillah 23b: The Mishna states that redeeming consecrated property requires ten people, yet the Gemara (גמרא) (citing Rabbi Shami) says that as a practical matter, three suffices. Tosafos asks why we need to learn this from a human being (Adam) rather than from an Eved Kena'ani (Canaanite slave), which is unquestionably property and subject to the principle that slaves are equated with land (Eved Hukash LeKarka). The answer, according to Tosafos, is that Midoraisa (Biblically) ten are required, but Miderabbanan (rabbinically) three suffice. This leads to the Tur Even's sharp question: If ten are required Midoraisa, how can the Chachamim permit redemption with only three? When property is consecrated and not properly redeemed according to Torah (תורה) law, it remains holy (Hekdesh), and anyone who derives benefit from it violates the prohibition of Me'ilah. While there is no sacrifice (Korban Me'ilah) for misusing land-based consecrated property, there remains a Biblical prohibition. The general rule is that rabbinic authorities can only suspend positive commandments passively (Yesh Koach Chacham La'akor Shev V'Al Ta'aseh) but cannot permit active violations of Biblical law (Kum Va'aseh). Yet here, by allowing redemption with only three judges, the Chachamim appear to permit people to use property that remains Biblically consecrated—an active transgression.
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 23b
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.
