A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When is selling sacred items permitted, and what must be done with the proceeds? The shiur demonstrates that Rambam (רמב"ם) distinguishes between two separate systems: communal kedusha (governed by ma'alin b'kodesh) and individual ownership (governed by kisvu lachem). This framework resolves apparent contradictions and explains why selling is permitted without requiring an upgrade.
This shiur undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the laws governing the sale of sacred objects, particularly focusing on Megillah 27a and revealing a fundamental distinction in the Rambam (רמב"ם) between two separate halachic systems. The central question is how to understand the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of selling holy items—does it forbid selling unless one upgrades, permit it entirely, or operate within a more nuanced framework? Rabbi Zweig begins by citing the Taz's reading of the Gemara, which suggests that one may only sell a sacred item if one will upgrade (ma'aleh b'kodesh), and that selling without upgrading is prohibited. The Taz questions how this reconciles with the position of Ma'ari Abuha (cited by the Beis Yosef) that one may sell equal for equal (shava b'shava). The Gemara appears to say that unless one upgrades, the sale is forbidden, with the only exception being a Sefer Torah (תורה), which has no higher level (ein iluy achrina).
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!
Megillah 27a
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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
