A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What does "ein ma'anin" mean regarding children fasting on Yom Kippur? The shiur analyzes the dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם): whether it's forbidden to withhold food (a sakana) or merely optional. A fundamental distinction emerges between shos (training with no real obligation) and hashlama (when the child has a mitzvah (מצוה) obligation) — showing that only boys have a din of shos, while both genders share the chiyuv of hashlama.
This shiur explores the Gemara (גמרא) on Yoma 82a discussing "ein ma'anin oson b'Yom Kippur" — the rule that we do not withhold food from children on Yom Kippur. The Ran presents a fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding what this phrase means. According to Rashi, "ein ma'anin" means "ein chayav lem'noa hem ma'achol" — you are not obligated to withhold food from them, but if you want to, you may. According to the Rambam, however, "ein ma'anin" means you are not permitted to withhold food — "shelo yovlu d'sakana" (lest they come to danger). The shiur analyzes this dispute in practical terms. If a child wants to eat, the Rambam's position is clear: withholding food constitutes a danger (sakana), and therefore it is forbidden. But what about a child who doesn't want to eat — who wants to fast to show off to his friends, which is a common phenomenon? According to the Rambam, even then you cannot allow complete fasting; according to Rashi, you are not obligated to prevent it, though you should make food available. The shiur suggests that the dispute may not be about different cases at all, but about how to respond to the same case: a child who wants to fast. The Rambam says you must tell him to eat (it's a mitzvah (מצוה) to eat), while Rashi says you should make food available but not force him.
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 82a
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.
