A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What makes some custom differences a violation of lo sasgodu while others remain permissible minhagim? The shiur analyzes Yevamos 13b's discussion of Megillah reading times to develop a fundamental chakira: lo sasgodu applies when one community holds another's practice is prohibited, not merely when they follow different customs. This distinction reshapes how we understand legitimate diversity in Jewish practice.
This shiur delivers an intricate analysis of Yevamos 13b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s application of the principle of lo sasgodu (do not create factions) to the varying times for reading the Megillah established by Chazal. The discussion probes why different communities reading the Megillah on different days—benei kfar on the eleventh, twelfth or thirteenth, benei ayarim on the fourteenth, and mukafei chomah on the fifteenth—might constitute a violation of lo sasgodu, and how the Gemara resolves this apparent problem. Rabbi Zweig opens with a fundamental question: how can there be an issue of lo sasgodu when the Torah (תורה) itself creates different categories with different obligations (Kohen, Levi, Yisrael)? If the Torah establishes these distinctions, what is the violation in having different groups perform the same mitzvah (מצוה) at different times? The class explores whether lo sasgodu applies only when there is a dispute about what the halacha (הלכה) should be, or whether it extends even to situations where everyone agrees on the categorization but the visible practice differs.
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!
Yevamos 13b
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.
