No community start suggestion yet.
Does a safek sotah (uncertain case of suspected adultery) create actual tumah or merely an issur? Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) debate whether the tumah written in the Torah (תורה) applies to safek cases or only vadai. The shiur analyzes the implications for chalitzah requirements and develops a fundamental chakira: can safek be vadai for issur purposes but not for tumah, or must these always align?
This shiur conducts a deep lamdus analysis of Yevamos 11a, focusing on Rav's statement that "tzaras sotah" (the co-wife of a suspected adulteress) is forbidden like the co-wife of an ervah, based on the principle of "tumah ksiva karayos" (impurity is written regarding forbidden relations). The central question is whether a safek sotah—a woman who was secluded with a man after receiving a warning but where the adultery is uncertain—creates actual tumah or merely an issur to her husband. Rashi (רש"י) explains that Rav is discussing a case where there was kinui (warning), stirah (seclusion), and eidus (witnesses to the seclusion), but no eidus tumah (witnesses to actual adultery). This creates a safek situation. Tosafos (תוספות) raises a fundamental difficulty: the pasuk "v'nitma" (and she became impure) regarding sotah appears to be written only for the vadai case of actual adultery, not for the safek case. Yet the Gemara (גמרא) derives from "im lo nitna lamah nashkas, im nitna lamah shosa" (if she wasn't defiled why does she need the get, if she was why does she drink) that even a safek sotah is forbidden to her husband. Tosafos suggests that the Torah (תורה) made "safek k'vadai" (treated uncertainty as certainty), but then asks: if so, why does she need chalitzah? If she's treated as vadai tamei, she should be like an ervah who doesn't need chalitzah.
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 11a
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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
