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.
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.
