No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Rav Yehuda accept smucha in Mishna Torah (תורה) but reject it elsewhere? The shiur explores whether smucha is peshat hapasuk (text interpretation) or divrei sofrim (rabbinic hermeneutics). This distinction determines when juxtaposition can create halacha (הלכה)—only where the pasuk otherwise lacks meaning, or even when it contradicts an existing gezeira shava.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental question in the Gemara (גמרא) in Yevamos 5a regarding the hermeneutical principle of smucha (juxtaposition of verses). The central question is why Rav Yehuda accepts smucha as a valid method of deriving halacha (הלכה) in Mishna Torah (תורה) (Deuteronomy) but rejects it in the rest of the Torah. The Gemara discusses the case of "Mechashefa lo s'chayeh" (a sorceress shall not live) juxtaposed with "Shochev im beheima yumat" (one who lies with an animal shall die). The smucha would teach that just as the latter receives skilah (stoning), so does the former. Rav Yehuda questions this: "V'chi mah smucha inyan lo?" - how can we derive such a stringent punishment from mere juxtaposition?
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 5a
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.
