A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does eating less than a kezayis on Yom Kippur violate a Torah (תורה) prohibition? The Minchas Chinuch argues it cannot stem from lo se'aneh (which has no chatzi shiur as an issur gavra), but rather from the obligation to be shoves—resting from eating. The machlokes Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish thus hinges on whether any amount constitutes ma'aseh achilah, thereby negating shevitah.
This shiur delves into a fundamental question about chatzi shiur (eating less than the standard measure) on Yom Kippur. The Gemara (גמרא) in Yoma 73b–74a discusses whether one violates a prohibition by eating less than a kezayis (olive's bulk) on Yom Kippur, and it attributes the prohibition to chatzi shiur, connecting it to the machlokes between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding whether chatzi shiur is prohibited. Rabbi Zweig presents the approach of the Minchas Chinuch, who argues that there cannot be a Torah (תורה)-level prohibition of chatzi shiur stemming from the negative commandment of lo se'aneh (the prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur). His reasoning is that lo se'aneh is an issur gavra (a prohibition on the person) rather than an issur cheftza (a prohibition on the object), and chatzi shiur only applies to issurim that are issur cheftza. The Minchas Chinuch draws a parallel to chametz on Pesach (פסח): since the person was permitted to eat chametz before Pesach (yeish heteira), chatzi shiur does not apply. All the more so on Yom Kippur, where fasting is purely an obligation on the person, chatzi shiur of lo se'aneh should not exist.
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.
