No community start suggestion yet.
What is the underlying mechanism when one yavam performs yibum or chalitza—does it release all the other brothers through shlichus ai ka'avdi, or because bayis echad hu boneh v'eino boneh shnei batim? The shiur traces the machlokes between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot through the sugya, showing how it reshapes the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s psak on eishes ach and the issur after chalitza.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot on Yevamos 9b regarding the mechanism by which yibum and chalitza operate when multiple yevamos fall to multiple yevamim. The discussion centers on whether we require the principle of shlichus ai ka'avdi (agency—that one brother's action is considered done on behalf of all) or whether a simpler principle of bayis echad hu boneh v'eino boneh shnei batim suffices. The Gemara (גמרא) earlier presented two possible understandings of the machlokes between Rab Yochanan and Reish Lakish. According to the first approach, Rab Yochanan holds there is no eishes ach at all (the zikah does not create forbidden relationships), while Reish Lakish holds there is. According to the second approach, both agree there is eishes ach, but they argue over whether chalitza by one brother removes the eishes ach only for him (Reish Lakish) or for all the brothers (Rab Yochanan). The shiur demonstrates that this dispute directly determines whether we need shlichus ai ka'avdi as an operating principle.
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 9b
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.
