No community start suggestion yet.
What is the nature of the heter for melacha on Yom Tov? The Rambam (רמב"ם) holds that all melachos remain forbidden - even cooking is fundamentally an issur. The Torah (תורה) provides a specific heter of ochel nefesh which permits certain melachos when done for food preparation, but this doesn't eliminate their essential character as forbidden work.
The shiur presents an in-depth analysis of a complex sugya from Kesubos 7a dealing with the principle of "mitoch" - the concept that since certain melachos are permitted on Yom Tov for food preparation (l'tzorech ochel nefesh), they become permitted even when not done for food needs (shelo l'tzorech). Rabbi Zweig examines several fundamental questions raised by the Rishonim on this Gemara (גמרא). The Rosh raises two primary difficulties with Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation. First, if the principle of mitoch allows any melacha to be done even shelo l'tzorech, then cooking for tomorrow should be completely permissible rather than merely exempt from malkos. Second, why does the Gemara require that a melacha be "shaveh l'chol nefesh" (equally needed by all) if even unnecessary melachos are permitted through mitoch?
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!
Kesubos 7a
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.
