A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) write both "issur" and "mitzvah (מצוה)" when describing Yom Kippur's prohibition on washing? The shiur builds a yesod that the inuyim contain two separate dinim de'oraisa: an issur asei forbidding rechitzas kol haguf, and a mitzvas asei requiring total abstention from water contact. This chakira resolves multiple contradictions in the Rambam and explains why chachamim can permit washing in limited cases.
This advanced shiur delivers a comprehensive analysis of a fundamental machlokes Rishonim regarding the five inuyim of Yom Kippur—specifically rechitza (washing). The central question is whether the inuyim are biblically or rabbinically mandated, and how to understand the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s seemingly contradictory rulings on when washing is permitted. The Tosfos Yeshonim argues the inuyim must be rabbinic, citing several proofs: melech and kallah may wash their faces, sichas kol gufo is permitted, and baal keri may immerse. The Rosh brings additional evidence that achilah and shtiyah are learned only as an asmachta (remez) from pesukim, suggesting the other inuyim are likewise rabbinic. The Ran adds that the Gemara (גמרא)'s language ("ein omrim karas") implies there's no Torah (תורה) prohibition at all—only the absence of karas.
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
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.
