A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is chatzi shiur (less than the required measure) forbidden on Yom Kippur when it's not a chefetz ha'issur (inherently forbidden object)? The shiur explores the machloket between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish: Rabbi Yochanan holds chatzi shiur constitutes a ma'aseh achilah (act of eating), thereby negating the mitzvah (מצוה) of fasting, while Reish Lakish holds it's not considered eating at all.
This shiur provides a deep analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Yoma 73b-74a, focusing on the fundamental nature of the prohibition of chatzi shiur (eating less than the minimum measure) and its application to Yom Kippur. The discussion begins with Rashi (רש"י)'s position that chatzi shiur applies to all three prohibitions on Yom Kippur, raising questions about the relationship between the issur (prohibition) and the concept of chatzitza (separation). The central question emerges: Why does the Mishna use the language "asur" (forbidden) for Yom Kippur when eating and drinking are punishable by karet? Rashi explains that the Mishna emphasizes chatzi shiur is forbidden, leading to a fundamental inquiry into how chatzi shiur operates. The shiur presents a novel insight from Rashi: chatzi shiur is only an issur when one does NOT complete the full shiur. If one eats a full kezayit within the time frame, there is no separate violation of chatzi shiur—only the violation of eating the full measure. This prevents the absurd result that eating one kezayit would constitute millions of violations (one for each molecule).
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!
Yoma 73b-74a
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.
