A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a tzaras sotah (co-wife of a sotah) need chalitzah if the sotah herself doesn't? The shiur analyzes the fundamental machlokes between the Rosh and Tosafos (תוספות) on the nature of safek tumah in sotah: whether doubt itself creates tumah (Rosh) or the Torah (תורה) commands us to treat the woman as if she were tamei (Tosafos), with major ramifications for yibum and chalitzah.
This shiur explores a difficult Tosafos (תוספות) in Yevamos 11a regarding the halachic status of a tzaras sotah—the co-wife of a woman who became a sotah (suspected adulteress). The core question is why the tzaras sotah requires chalitzah when a vadai sotah (a woman who is definitively tamei through witnessed adultery) would not require chalitzah at all, as she becomes an ervah to her husband. Tosafos raises a fundamental kashya: if the sotah is only a safek (doubtful case), it should follow the principle of safek derabbanan lehakel (we are lenient in cases of rabbinic doubt), so why would she need chalitzah? Furthermore, if the answer is that the Torah (תורה) instituted a principle of "asah Torah safek kivadai" (the Torah treats doubt as certainty), then the sotah should be treated as vadai tamei, which would make her an eishes ach (forbidden wife of a brother) and thus exempt from chalitzah entirely. Yet the Gemara (גמרא) concludes she does need chalitzah.
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.
