No community start suggestion yet.
Why can a shevuah take effect on chatzi shiur when the measure itself is only rabbinically prohibited? The shiur develops a fundamental yesod through Yoma 74a: a shevuah "shelo yochal kol shehu" creates a new beriah — a complete ma'aseh issur — transforming a partial measure into a distinct prohibition independent of the underlying chatzi shiur issur derabbanan.
This shiur completes the analysis of chatzi shiur on Yoma 74a, addressing a fundamental question in the laws of shevuah: how can a shevuah take effect on chatzi shiur (a half-measure) when the Gemara (גמרא)'s simple reading suggests that a shevuah is not chal (does not take effect) on an issur derabbanan? The Gemara's initial position is that on an issur derabbanan, a shevuah is not chal because of lo sasur. Yet the Gemara concludes that since chatzi shiur is also midoraisa, the shevuah is chal. This creates a fundamental question about the nature of the change between the havah amina and maskana. Rabbi Zweig develops the core kasha through the Mahari Chavad and Tosfos Yom Kippur. The Rambam (רמב"ם) holds that a shevuah is chal on chatzi shiur, stating that anything not meforash in the Torah (תורה) allows a shevuah to take effect. However, this seems inconsistent with our Gemara, which clearly implies that a shevuah is not chal on chatzi shiur according to Rav Yochanan. The Gemara in Shevuos (23b) presents an apparent contradiction: there, the sugya holds that according to Rav Yochanan, a shevuah can be chal on chatzi shiur, while our sugya suggests it cannot.
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 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.
