A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is drinking undiluted vinegar on Yom Kippur exempt from kares according to the Rambam (רמב"ם) but obligates payment for terumah? The shiur distinguishes between two types of inui: increased agitation versus complete satisfaction. The Rambam holds kares requires yishuv hadas (satisfaction), while violating the positive commandment requires only preventing escalation of discomfort—a fundamental distinction that resolves apparent contradictions across halachic contexts.
The Gemara (גמרא) on Yoma 81a-b records that Rebbe ruled drinking vinegar on Yom Kippur is a capital offense. Rav Gidel bar Menashe lectured in Biri d'Narish that the halacha (הלכה) is not like Rebbe. The townspeople diluted vinegar and drank it. Rav Gidel was upset, clarifying he never permitted drinking vinegar—only stating that after the fact (b'dieved) there is no kares for small amounts of undiluted vinegar, and he never addressed diluted vinegar at all. Most Rishonim understand this to mean drinking large amounts of undiluted vinegar carries kares, and diluted vinegar certainly does. The Rambam (רמב"ם), however, rules in Hilchos Shegagos 2:6 that drinking diluted vinegar is kares, but in 2:5 that even large amounts of undiluted vinegar do not carry kares—an apparent contradiction. The resolution hinges on understanding the nature of inui (affliction) on Yom Kippur. The pasuk commands "lo se'una"—one must be in a state of deprivation. Rabbeinu Yerucham and the Sefer HaShlomah understand inui to mean that one's discomfort must continuously increase throughout the day. Any food or drink that prevents this escalation—even if unpleasant—violates the prohibition and incurs kares. Thus, drinking large amounts of undiluted vinegar stops the escalation of hunger and thirst, even though it provides no pleasure, and therefore incurs kares. The Vilna Gaon in Shulchan Aruch explains this as violating "you are no longer in inui."
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 81a-b
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.