A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does tzaras tzarah—the co-wife of a co-wife—require its own pasuk when it should follow automatically from tzaras ervah? The shiur opens the gemara (גמרא)'s core problem: once a woman who is tzaras ervah marries a second brother, she becomes an eshes ach shelo b'makom mitzvah (מצוה), so her tzarah should be patur on that basis alone. Rav Yehuda Keivel's question and multiple Rishonim (Rashi (רש"י), Tosafos (תוספות)) are unpacked at length.
This shiur, the first in Maseches Yevamos, begins by establishing the standard formula for the cases that will recur throughout the masechta: Reuven (the original mes), Shimon (the yavam who later becomes the second mes), and Levi (the one to whom Reuven's wife is an ervah). The opening Mishna presents the din of tzaras tzarah: when Levi's daughter (bito) is married to Reuven, and Reuven dies, both the daughter and her co-wife (Leah) are patur from yibum. If Leah then marries Shimon and Shimon dies, Leah's co-wife (Bilhah) is also patur—this is called tzaras tzarah, the co-wife of a co-wife. Rabbi Zweig opens with a fundamental linguistic problem in the Mishna. The Mishna says "kach tzaras tzarasah peturah"—literally, the co-wife of her co-wife is patur. But this is peculiar. By the time Leah marries Shimon, Leah herself has become an ervah on Levi—not merely as bito's co-wife, but as eshes ach shelo b'makom mitzvah (מצוה). An eshes ach shelo b'makom mitzvah is a full-fledged ervah (like eshes ach shelo hayah b'olamo). Once Leah is an ervah, Bilhah (Shimon's wife) should be patur simply because she is tzaras ervah—the co-wife of an ervah. Why does the Mishna call her "tzaras tzarasah" (tracing her status all the way back to Rochel, Levi's daughter) rather than simply "tzarasah" (the co-wife of Leah, who is now an ervah)?
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 2a
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.