Class Resources & Information

Dear Talmidim,

Last night, we sharpened our understanding of the Gemara's kashya/question on the A2 assertion that Reish Lakish agrees that 1/2 shiur is assur m'drabanan.  The way we explained the kashyah: RL , in the Gemara in Shvuot, offers an alternative on how to explain the Tanna Kamma's ruling of 'chayav'. If you recall, there was a machloket between TK and R. Shimon in Shvuot as to whether a person who takes an oath that he will not eat is chayav a korban Shvua or not. 

TK says yes, RS says no.  Reish Lakish explains that the korban could not be generated were the oath-taker have to consumed a shiur/kezayit, but rather a 1/2 shiur. RL adds: whether we look at it from the perspective of Rabanan - who would have to say he specified a 1/2 shiur - or R. Akiva - who would say that he could have even in an unspecified way, forbidden himself in the forbidden food - the korban shvua is brought for the consumption of a half shiur.  Now, says the Gemara, if A2 were correct, namely that RL agrees that a 1/2 shiur is assur m'drabanan, the person is "mushbah v'omed m'Har Sinai" not to eat even a 1/2 shiur by virtue of the pasuk of "Lo Tasur".  The Gemara understands that the prohibition to depart from the sage's words applies not only to deviations from declarations of the Bet Din HaGadol in Jerusalem, but also to enactments by Chazal throughout the generations.  If so, the person who forbade himself in a 1/2 shiur and ate it anyhow, is an example of "nishbah l'kayim et hamitzvah v'loh kiyem" - committed himself to fulfill a mitzvah but failed to do so.  According to another mishna, this person should NOT be liable for a korban shvua! (that is, if RL indeed holds that non-consumption of a 1/2 shiur is assur m'drabanan)

Therefore, the Gemara in Q3 brings us all the way back to Q1 which is : how do we explain the word "assur" in the mishna, specifically, for RL? One cannot explain that it means assur m'drabanan, because RL clearly doesn't hold that 1/2 shiur is assur m'drabanan, but mutar L'chatchila!

At the end of the shiur, we began the approach towards the answer - ie a distinction between the specific will of Hashem, as expressed in Dinim D'oraita, vs. the "general will" of Hashem, as expressed in the 'blank check' he wrote Chazal to institute dinim d'rabanan.  Whereas the former can be called "musbah v'omed m'Har Sinai" - - - maybe the latter cannot - because it's literally not from Har Sinai! (literally, but rather generally!)

Looked at it this way, we could perhaps reconcile RL's view that one who eats a 1/2 shiur is chayav a korban, with RL who holds 1/2 shiur is assur m'drabanan........... 

Dear Talmidim,

For tonight's shiur, please click below to see the PDF file called "Reish Lakish" for a digital Gemara summary of our material to date plus explanation - and please put aside some time to ponder the Rashi at the end of the sheet.

See you in shiur!

Dear Talmidim,

Because of the complexity of what we were dealing with yesterday, I am going to summarize - for the first 5-8 minutes of the shiur - where we are holding at this point in the sugyah, specifically, what the case and din is in Masechet Shavuot, and what R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish are contributing to the discussion.  We will then move on to how this piece fits into the Gemara's קושיא on the view expressed in the name of Resh Lakish - namely, that Chatzi Shiur is forbidden rabbinically.

See you in shiur!

This is the question that is preoccupying the Gemara as we move into tonight's session.  As we saw yesterday, the Gemara has one central question: how do we understand the term 'assur' in the mishna as it relates to eating and drinking:
a) it is an understatement, since the punishment for eating and drinking is "karet" ; the Gemara responded by saying that the opening section of the mishna is referring to a case of something less than the full amount of a kotevet hagasa; though there is no karet for this, there is still a Torah prohibition

b) the Gemara responds by noting that this works only for R. Yochanan, who is famous for saying (in another context) that the Torah forbids consuming even a fraction of a kezayit of forbidden foods.  Similarly, R. Yochanan would have no issue with a mishna declaring a 'chatzi shiur' to be 'assur.  However, Reish Lakish disagrees with R. Yochanan in that context, ruling that 'chatzi shiur' is perfectly permissible according to the Torah.  For Reish Lakish, anything less than a full measure of a forbidden food does not only avoid the punishment, but the very prohibition itself!  Therefore, we are back to square one, because the interpretation that the Gemara has offered for the mishna does not 'jibe' with the range of later Amoraitic opinion.  How would Reish Lakish's camp understand the mishna?

c) the Gemara answers that despite Reish Lakish permitting a chatzi shiur from the Torah, he holds that the Rabanan, or sages, decreed it to be forbidden.  If so, Reish Lakish, too, has a way of explaining the term 'assur' in the mishna as referring to a rabbinic prohibition.  So the mishna is tentatively solved, both for R. Yochanan - Torah prohibition, but no Karet ('assur' min HaTorah); Reish Lakish - rabbinic prohibition (assur midr'bananan")

d) Our shiur ended with the start of another question: אי הכי - and Rashi explains that this means, "if so...that Reish Lakish believes there to be a rabbinic prohibition for eating less than a full measure...." The Gemara is about to prove that Reish Lakish DOES NOT HOLD THERE ARE RABBINIC PROHIBITIONS FOR EATING PARTIAL MEASURES.  The mechanics of how the Gemara is going to prove this is a little complex, and will be the subject of tonight's shiur - as we 'coast' to the top of 74a.

Dear Talmidim,

Thanks to your active involvement during last night's shiur, we were able to begin drilling a little more deeply into our sugyah: The Gemara, in its opening question, "assur? Onesh Karet Hu!" is troubled by the apparent understatement of the halacha at the start of the mishna; one who eats or drinks on Yom Kippur is liable for the severe penalty of Karet, and is not merely doing something forbidden.  The premise of the question is that the mishna would want to express the full extent of the din.  Since the term 'assur' is sufficiently broad to include any forbidden activity, even those that do not carry with them the penalty of Karet, the mishna understated the halacha by merely saying 'assur'. 

The Gemara answers by pointing out that the mishna was referring to the narrow case of a Chatzi Shiur.  Literally, chatzi shiur means 'a half measure' of food. In this case, a half measure would seem to mean a half of a "kotevet" (date - volume of solid) or a half a cheekful (liquid).  Rashi, however, tells us that the term chatzi means anything less than the full 'shiur' or measurement in this context.  This is a leniency relative to the literal meaning - which would only have exempted a person for 50% of a kotevet...

One of the talmidim asked how Rashi knows this? Does anyone have an answer?

We also pointed out that Rashi deems less than a full shiur to be still forbidden from the Torah.  We can derive this from the words of Rashi, when he says that less than a shiur 'karet-there is not; an issur - there is"  This seems to imply that a partial shiur is one rung less than Karet - ie although there is no karet, there still is a Torah issur..

Dear Talmidim,

See the email of late last night for thought questions pertaining to today's class.

No anticipicated technical problems await us - please log on at least 5 minutes before our shiur - see you there!

Dear Students,

This Sunday at 9 pm Eastern time we begin our Elul Zman study of Masechet Yoma.  On our site, you now have access to the mishna and Gemara that we will be learning in our first shiurim.  Before Sunday evening, please see the mishna and see how you do answering the questions. You will have to log in and go to your shiur page to access the material.  Shabbat Shalom!

Ron-Ami Meyers