A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can you violate Yom Kippur by consuming something in an unusual way? The shiur contrasts Rashi (רש"י)'s position that liability depends on derech achilah (normal manner of eating) with the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s view that anything edible—even consumed abnormally—creates liability. The distinction emerges from how each reads the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of vinegar, spices, and ginger on Yom Kippur.
This advanced shiur analyzes Yoma 81b, focusing on the fundamental question of what creates liability on Yom Kippur when foods are consumed in an unusual manner (shelo k'derech achilah). The discussion centers on the Gemara (גמרא)'s treatment of spices (papalin), ginger (zangvil), and vinegar (chometz), and the profound disagreement between Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding the principle of yishuv ha-daas (satisfaction/settling of mind). Rabbi Zweig begins with the Gemara's statement that one who eats papalin (peppers) on Yom Kippur in an unusual manner is not liable. Rashi explains this is because there is no derech achilah—no normal manner of eating it that way—and therefore no yishuv ha-daas. The Gemara raises a difficulty from the laws of orlah: if papalin is not considered food when eaten whole, how can it be subject to orlah, which only applies to fruit trees? Rashi answers that the distinction is between wet (rotuv) and dry (yavesh) forms. When wet, papalin can be eaten whole and is considered food; when dry, it is ground as a spice and is not eaten in a normal manner.
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.
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.
