A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What are Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi Yehuda actually arguing about regarding eating before Shabbos (שבת)? The shiur develops a chiddush from the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s dual formulation: Rabbi Yossi holds Shabbos requires desiring a formal seudah, while Rabbi Yehuda holds it requires actual food appetite. This explains their dispute and why Erev Pesach (פסח) has additional stringencies.
This shiur analyzes Pesachim 99b, focusing on the machlokes between Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi Yehuda regarding eating on Erev Shabbos (שבת) and Erev Pesach (פסח). The Gemara (גמרא) presents Rav Papa's teretz that according to Rabbi Yehuda, there's a distinction between Erev Shabbos/Yom Tov (where eating is prohibited from mincha and onwards) and Erev Pesach (which has an additional chumra of 'samuch l'mincha'). Rabbi Zweig examines the fundamental question of what Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi Yehuda are actually arguing about. The Shulchan Aruch in siman 529 rules that me'ikar hadin, regular meals that one eats during the week are permitted all day on Erev Shabbos, following Rabbi Yossi. However, one cannot be kovea seudah (establish a formal meal), especially fancy meals beyond what one normally eats.
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!
Pesachim 99b
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.
