No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna in Yevamos list arayos in its particular order rather than starting with achos isha? The Gemara (גמרא) explores whether the arrangement reflects degrees of issur (chumra), the Torah (תורה)'s textual source (makor), or derived status (asim midrasha). The shiur traces the Gemara's progression through these answers and examines whether the underlying din of yibum's prohibition stems from the issur karas or the absence of tofes kiddushin.
This shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא) on Yevamos 2a, which questions the order of the Mishna listing arayos (forbidden relationships) in the context of yibum. The Gemara opens by asking why the Mishna does not begin with achos isha (one's wife's sister), since that prohibition appears explicitly in the written Torah (תורה), making it the "source" (makor) from which other prohibitions are derived. The initial assumption is that the textual source should come first. The Gemara then considers an alternative: perhaps the order reflects chumra chumri nakat—arranging prohibitions by severity, with sreifa (burning) being the most severe punishment. This would explain why bito (one's daughter) appears first, as she carries the punishment of sreifa. Rabbi Zweig explains that this derasha of chumra chumri nakat is not merely about ordering severities; it defines the fundamental reason a woman falls into the category of those exempt from yibum. It suggests that the exemption is based on the issur itself—the severity of the prohibition—rather than on the absence of tofes kiddushin (the ability to effect marriage).
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 2a
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.
