No community start suggestion yet.
Does a sotah safek (suspected adulteress without proof) require chalitza? The shiur analyzes Yevamos 11b, contrasting Rav's position with Rav Ashi's, exploring whether safek k'vadai (doubt treated as certainty) means presumption of relations or that intimacy itself constitutes tumah. Nafka minas include mamzerus, malkos, and the mechanism of issur.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Yevamos 11b dealing with the laws of machzir gerushto (remarrying one's divorcée) in the context of sotah (suspected adulteress). The central question is whether a sotah safek—a woman suspected of adultery but without conclusive proof—requires chalitza (levirate release) or can proceed to yibum (levirate marriage). The Gemara (גמרא) brings a difficulty for Rav, who holds that a sotah vadai (definite adulteress) does not require chalitza, but a sotah safek does. The challenge comes from the pasuk "v'nistra v'hi nitma'ah" (she secluded herself and was defiled), which appears to apply even to a sotah safek, seemingly contradicting Rav's distinction. Rav Ashi offers a resolution: the pasuk refers specifically to a sotah vadai, establishing that even definite defilement creates an issur.
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 11b
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.
