No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rama rule that eating must stop at teisha shaos on Erev Pesach (פסח) but chatzos on Erev Sukkos (סוכות)? The shiur examines whether the difference stems from permitted food types or argues that the Rama actually holds chatzos for both. The analysis traces the sugya back to whether preserving appetite serves the korban Pesach or the matzah obligation itself.
Rabbi Zweig examines a fundamental question about when one must stop eating on the eves of major festivals. The Mechaber rules that on both Erev Pesach (פסח) and Erev Sukkos (סוכות), one must stop eating from chatzos (midday). However, the Rama disagrees regarding Erev Pesach, ruling that one only needs to stop from teisha shaos (the ninth hour/3 PM). This creates an apparent contradiction: if the Rama holds that Erev Pesach requires stopping only from teisha shaos, why does he agree with the Mechaber that on Erev Sukkos one must stop from chatzos? The Magen Avrohom raises this kashya and suggests that perhaps the difference lies in the type of food permitted: on Erev Pesach, only lighter foods are permitted, which require stopping only from teisha shaos to maintain appetite, while on Erev Sukkos, heavier foods like bread are permitted, requiring the earlier cutoff of chatzos. However, the Magen Avrohom himself questions this distinction, noting the lack of clear sources for such a differentiation.
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.
