A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When may a kohen who is mechusar kipurim eat terumah — at sunset or only after bringing his korban? The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that eating terumah constitutes avoda reshapes the question: a mechusar kipurim can eat terumah at night, but it lacks the status of proper mitzvah (מצוה) fulfillment until after his korban.
This shiur provides a detailed examination of Berachos 4b, focusing on the complex halachic question of when a kohen who is mechusar kipurim (lacking atonement) may eat terumah. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether a kohen can eat at 'beis hashemesh' (sunset) or must wait until 'beis oro' (the next morning after bringing his korban). Rabbi Zweig analyzes multiple approaches to understanding this sugya, particularly focusing on Tosafos (תוספות)'s interpretation and Rabbi Akiva Eiger's novel reading. A central debate emerges around whether te'ima (casual snacking) is permitted before Krias Shema, with Rabbi Akiva Eiger arguing that Tosafos holds te'ima is forbidden, while Rabbi Zweig suggests the opposite interpretation. The shiur explores the Baal HaMa'or's question on Rashi (רש"י) regarding why the Gemara brings a proof from a Braisa rather than the more explicit Mishna about kohanim eating terumah. Rabbi Zweig presents an innovative explanation based on the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that eating terumah constitutes an avoda (Temple service). According to this approach, the question isn't whether the kohen is permitted to eat terumah at night, but rather whether his eating constitutes a proper fulfillment of the mitzvah (מצוה) of avoda. A mechusar kipurim can eat terumah at night, but it may not have the status of avoda until he brings his korban. This resolves various textual difficulties and explains why the Braisa uses the language 'zakai' (they merit/are entitled), indicating proper fulfillment rather than mere permission. The shiur also addresses the relationship between this halacha (הלכה) and the prohibition against eating before Krias Shema, suggesting that eating terumah as an avoda might be different from regular eating. Rabbi Zweig concludes by noting that this interpretation aligns with the Rambam's counting of eating terumah as one of the 613 mitzvos and his characterization of it as an avoda.
Berachos 4b
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.
Up Next in this Series
Why does saying Ashrei three times daily guarantee a share in the World to Come? The verse 'umasbia l'chol chai ratzon' reveals that God provides not just sustenance but pleasure to all creation out of pure love. This recognition teaches us that even basic needs are expressions of divine chesed, creating the foundation for love-motivated service through both major and minor mitzvos.
Should one learn Torah full-time trusting in Divine providence, or combine learning with work? The shiur distinguishes between Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai's approach of complete separation from worldly concerns versus Rabbi Shmuel's view that proper work itself becomes part of Torah. The key insight: true emunah means learning without demanding sustenance from either Hashem or community, unlike having a 'contract' expecting payment for learning.
Should one combine Torah study with work, or rely entirely on Divine providence through exclusive learning? The shiur analyzes the machlokes between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, explaining that 'Bnei Aliyah' live above natural law where Torah itself becomes their reality. This connects to the difference between tzaddik gamor and tzaddik she'eino gamor regarding transcending physical limitations.
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.
