A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What changed when Chazal made a takana not to accept witnesses after Mincha on Rosh Hashanah? The shiur works through the mechanics of kedushas achas—whether the first day became vadai Yom Tov (Yisroel's reading) or remained safek but with new restrictions (Yitzchok's reading). Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) disagree on which shir the Leviim sang when witnesses had already arrived.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Masechta Rosh Hashanah 5a dealing with the takana that Chazal instituted regarding when to accept witnesses for Rosh Chodesh Tishrei. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses how before this takana, witnesses could come at any time during the day, which once caused a problem when they arrived after Mincha and disrupted the Tamid shel bein ha'arbayim. Chazal therefore instituted that witnesses would not be accepted after Mincha. The Gemara states that as a result, both days of Rosh Hashanah have a din of "kedushas achas"—one unified sanctity. Rabbi Zweig begins by posing the fundamental question: What practically changed before and after the takana? Before the takana, people kept the first day mi'safek—perhaps witnesses would come and it would be Yom Tov. After the takana, when witnesses cannot be accepted after Mincha anyway, what is different about how people observe the day? Why does the Gemara describe this as "kedushas achas"?
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!
Rosh Hashanah 5a
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.
