A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Is ochel nefesh on Yom Tov a heter allowing otherwise forbidden melacha, or does it define a different category of permitted activity? The Rambam (רמב"ם) holds it's a heter like pikuach nefesh, while the Ramban (רמב"ן) and Rav Maggid view it as non-melacha entirely. This fundamental dispute explains the Rambam's ruling on cooking for tomorrow.
This shiur presents a fundamental machlokes Rishonim regarding the nature of ochel nefesh on Yom Tov. The Ramban (רמב"ן) and Rav Maggid hold that ochel nefesh is not melacha at all - the Torah (תורה) only forbids meleches avoda (work-like activity), while ochel nefesh activities lack the character of melacha entirely. According to this view, what you do directly for eating pleasure is not considered effortful work. The Rambam (רמב"ם), however, learns that ochel nefesh is a heter - you are doing melacha, but it's permitted like pikuach nefesh. This parallels how pikuach nefesh allows melacha on Shabbos (שבת) as a heter, not because it's not melacha. The Ran supports this approach, distinguishing between pikuach nefesh being dechuya (pushed aside) on Shabbos versus ochel nefesh being huchra (permitted) on Yom Tov.
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!
Kesubos 7a
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.
