A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What does it mean to add time from the profane to the sacred on Yom Kippur? The shiur distinguishes between tosefes (automatic addition of time with melacha prohibitions) and kabbalah (explicit acceptance creating full sacred status). This resolves the machloket between the Rosh and Mordechai about whether early acceptance requires conscious intent.
This shiur provides a comprehensive analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Yoma 81b, focusing on the mitzvah (מצוה) of tosefes - adding from the profane to the sacred time on Yom Kippur. The discussion begins with examining the braisa that derives the requirement to add time to Yom Kippur, Shabbos (שבת), and Yom Tov from the verse "ve'inisem es nafshoseichem betisha lachodesh" - indicating that the affliction begins on the ninth day. The Gemara establishes that while there is an obligation for tosefes, there is no punishment for violating it, as derived from a separate braisa. A central machloket (dispute) emerges between the Rishonim regarding the nature of tosefes. The Rosh holds that tosefes must occur before bein hashmashos (twilight) and cannot be merely a moment, based on his analysis that women would eat until close to nightfall without protest from the Chachamim. This proves that tosefes requires a substantial amount of time, not just seconds. Crucially, the Rosh's position implies that tosefes occurs automatically without requiring explicit kabbalah (acceptance).
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 81b
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.
