A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna forbid eating on Erev Pesach (פסח) 'until dark' rather than simply until the Seder begins? The shiur traces a fundamental machlokes about whether this creates two separate laws - an Erev Pesach restriction plus a Seder obligation to eat adequately - or one law ensuring proper appetite for the mitzvas matzah.
This shiur examines Mishna Pesachim 99b which states that on Erev Pesach (פסח) one may not eat from mincha time 'ad shetechashech' (until dark). Rabbi Zweig begins by questioning why the holiday is called 'Pesach' rather than 'Chag HaMatzos' as it appears throughout the Torah (תורה), citing the Berditchever Rav's famous explanation that we call it by what Hashem (ה׳) did for us (passed over our houses), while Hashem calls it by what we did for Him (left Egypt in haste with matzah). The central discussion focuses on interpreting the phrase 'samuch l'mincha lo yochal ad shetechashech.' Rashi (רש"י) explains 'samuch l'mincha' as 'before mincha time,' while the Rashbam and other Rishonim interpret it as a specific half-hour period. The analysis examines what 'lo yochal' (may not eat) refers to and why the Mishna uses 'ad shetechashech' (until dark).
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.
