A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
The Gemara (גמרא) questions why different Jewish communities read the Megillah on different days without violating lo titgodedu (creating divisions). The shiur analyzes whether the prohibition applies when there are legitimate reasons for different practices, whether it governs rabbinic legislation, and how the universal nature of the Purim (פורים) salvation relates to varied local observances.
This shiur presents an intensive analysis of Yevamos 12a-13b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s challenge regarding the prohibition of lo titgodedu as it applies to the different days of Megillah reading. The central question is how Chazal could institute different observance days for Purim (פורים)—the fourteenth of Adar for unwalled cities and the fifteenth for walled cities—without violating the Torah (תורה)'s prohibition against creating divisions within the Jewish people. The discussion begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s approach to understanding an ailonis (a woman incapable of childbearing) in the context of yibum and chalitzah. This leads to a broader exploration of when exemption from one obligation creates a consequent issur (prohibition) in another area, specifically the creation of an eishes ach status. The Gemara's principle is that wherever someone is exempt from yibum, a consequent issur eishes ach results, yet this raises questions about why certain cases require chalitzah and others don't.
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!
Yevamos 12a-13b
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.
