A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How can a shevuah be chal on eating chatzi shiur if it's already forbidden? The Gemara (גמרא) distinguishes between derabanan and de'orayta prohibitions. The Rambam (רמב"ם) and Meiri offer fundamental approaches to understanding shevuot: the Meiri distinguishes between intrinsic issurim and harchakah, while the Rambam treats shevuot as declaratory statements rather than commitments.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental question in the laws of shevuot bitui (oaths of utterance): when can a shevuah take effect on an action that is already forbidden? The Gemara (גמרא) on Yoma 73b-74a discusses whether one can be chayav a korban shevuah for swearing not to eat neveilot and treifot, forbidden foods, or for swearing not to eat chatzi shiur (less than the minimum prohibited measure). The basic principle is that a shevuah requires the action to be l'hara'ah l'heitiv—purely optional. The Gemara presents two answers: Rav Yochanan holds the shevuah is only chal if formulated b'kollel (including permitted items); Reish Lakish says it's chal on chatzi shiur which is forbidden only miderabanan. The Gemara then questions this from shevuat eidut regarding a pasul witness miderabanan, and answers that there it lacks practical benefit.
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-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.
