A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What is the nature of the prohibition when a wife becomes forbidden to her husband—an issur ishus (prohibition affecting the marriage) or an issur bia (prohibition of relations)? The shiur analyzes the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that malkus for sotah vadai is d'rabanan while sotah safek receives malkus mardus, revealing a fundamental chakira: sotah vadai creates an issur ishus requiring two witnesses (davar sheb'ervah), while other prohibitions like eishes kohen shenensa create only an issur bia, requiring chalitzah but not full kares ishus.
This advanced Gemara (גמרא) shiur addresses a fundamental conceptual question in Hilchos Yibum and sotah: when a married woman becomes forbidden to her husband, does this create an issur ishus (a prohibition affecting the essential marriage status) or merely an issur bia (a prohibition of physical relations within an intact marriage)? The distinction has profound halachic ramifications for yibum, chalitzah, and the laws of testimony. The shiur opens with a difficulty in the Rambam (Hilchos Gerushin, Perek 11, Halacha (הלכה) 14): the Rambam (רמב"ם) states that a sotah vadai receives "lokim" (lashes), while a sotah safek receives "malkus mardus." The Kesef Mishneh and Rav Maggid struggle to explain how the Rambam can use different terminology when both seem to be d'rabanan prohibitions. The shiur proposes that malkus refers to a past transgression (punishment for an issur), while malkus mardus is preventive (to stop future behavior). The Rambam may be distinguishing between cases where there is an underlying issur d'oraisa (even without malkus d'oraisa, such as a lav shebiklalos) and cases of pure rabbinic prohibition.
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.
