No community start suggestion yet.
How can bris milah be considered "yom valayla" when circumcision isn't performed at night? The bris that sustains the world isn't the momentary act of milah, but the permanent state of being a baal bris. This covenant relationship exists constantly, making every circumcised Jew a perpetual partner with Hashem (ה׳) day and night.
Rabbi Zweig analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s interpretation of the pasuk "Im lo brisi chukash shamayim ve'aretz lo samti," which discusses the fundamental importance of bris (covenant) in maintaining the world's existence. The Gemara offers bris milah as one interpretation of this bris, but the Tois Fos Yontov raises a significant question: how can bris milah be considered "yom valayla" (day and night) when the actual circumcision is not performed at night? The Tois Fos Yontov suggests repunctuating the sentence to read: "Im lo brisi, yom valayla chukash shamayim ve'aretz lo samti" - if not for bris milah, then day and night, the laws of heaven and earth would not be established. However, this interpretation conflicts with the traditional trop (cantillation) of the pasuk.
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!
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.
