A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a sotah's co-wife (tzara) become forbidden from yibum? The shiur contrasts Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) with the Raavid, developing the chakira of whether "tumah ksiva bakarais" creates a new generic ervah or whether it reflects an issur ishus—a flaw in the original marriage itself. The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s rulings on sotah vadai, sofek sotah, and eishes Kohen she'nessa are analyzed in depth.
This shiur offers a comprehensive treatment of the Talmudic principle of "tzaras sotah"—the status of a sotah's co-wife (tzara) with respect to yibum (levirate marriage)—and explores the underlying mechanics of "tumah ksiva bakarais," a key concept that determines when an issur on one person transfers to another in the context of yibum. The discussion begins with the basic disagreement between the early commentators on Yevamos 11a. Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) learn that the Gemara (גמרא)'s statement "tzaras sotah asura" means that neither the sotah nor her tzara are subject to yibum or chalitzah—they are entirely exempt. The Raavid, however, reads the Gemara differently: "asura" is precise language, indicating that while the sotah and her tzara are forbidden from yibum, they still require chalitzah. This leads to the Rosh's fundamental question: if the Raavid is correct, why does the Gemara pose a contradiction from the Mishna in Sotah, which explicitly states that a sotah requires chalitzah? According to the Raavid, there is no contradiction at all—both sources agree that chalitzah is required.
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.
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.
