No community start suggestion yet.
Why may a Sefer Torah (תורה) be rolled together—placing one section atop another—yet we cannot place other sefarim on top of it? The Gemara (גמרא)'s proof from kericha (rolling) rests on understanding that a Sefer Torah is inherently five separate sefarim, not one unified entity. The shiur develops this yesod through the concept of sefer kerisus and addresses the Rashba's challenge regarding Torah, Nevi'im, and Kesuvim.
This shiur examines Megillah 27a, focusing on the complex issue of placing one sefer on top of another (sefer agav sefer). The Gemara (גמרא) permits placing a Sefer Torah (תורה) section on top of another section when rolling it, and derives from this that one may place sefarim of equal kedusha together. However, several fundamental questions arise from this derivation. The primary difficulty is understanding the Gemara's logic. The Gemara brings a proof from lo efshar (impossibility)—that when rolling a Sefer Torah, it is impossible not to place one section atop another. Yet this principle of lo efshar does not appear explicitly in the poskim's formulation of the halacha (הלכה) regarding placing one sefer on another. Additionally, if the proof is from lo efshar, why isn't that condition required in all cases?
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!
Megillah 27a
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.
