No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna use "patur" (exempt) instead of "asur" (forbidden) when describing ervah's exemption from yibum? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s dialectic: "patur" might misleadingly suggest voluntary yibum is permitted, while "asur" might wrongly imply she's forbidden even outside the mitzvah (מצוה) context. The resolution hinges on which formulation better captures that she's excluded *because* she's an ervah, not merely exempt from a mitzvah.
The shiur begins by analyzing the structure of the Mishna in Yevamos, which lists various arayos (forbidden relations) who are exempt from yibum. A foundational question emerges: the Gemara (גמרא) states that we learn the entire din of arayos being exempt from yibum from "achos isha" (one's wife's sister). Rashi (רש"י) explains that we don't learn this from "ervah lo tzorech kra" (the general principle that an ervah doesn't require a verse) alone. Rather, the fact that achos isha "poteres tzarah" (exempts the co-wife) teaches us that ervah herself is entirely excluded from yibum. The logic works backward: if she weren't herself excluded, she couldn't exempt the tzarah. This becomes the source for understanding that ervah is patur (exempt) from yibum entirely. This raises the Gemara's central question: if we learn everything from achos isha, why doesn't the Mishna begin with achos isha first? The shiur explores several possible answers. One approach follows the principle that we should start with what is explicit in the Torah (תורה), since Torah she'b'al peh (Oral Law) is a commentary on Torah she'b'ksav (Written Law). Therefore, what appears clearly in the written text should be codified first. However, the Gemara offers a different answer: "ki chatzei matanah chumra chumra noka" - perhaps the Mishna starts with the more severe prohibitions first, those punishable by serefah (burning).
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 3a
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.
