A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
May a metzora who is a tevul yom from keri enter Machaneh Leviyah to undergo tahara? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s principle of "hoyal v'ishri ishri" and Ula's concept that "biah b'miktzas shmo biah" (partial entry is considered entry). The Reb Chaim's fundamental chakira between the issur of being in the Mikdash versus the issur of entering it provides a new lens on multiple sugyos.
The shiur analyzes Yevamos 36b, focusing on the case of a metzora who becomes a ba'al keri on the eighth day when he must enter the Mikdash for his tahara process. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether such a person may enter Machaneh Leviyah (the area of the Shar Nikanor) despite being a tevul yom of keri, which would normally be prohibited mi'd'rabbanan in that area. The Gemara introduces the principle of "mutav sheyavo aseh sheyesh bo kareis v'yidcheh aseh she'ein bo kareis" – it is preferable to violate an issur de'rabbanan (tevul yom entering Machaneh Leviyah) when fulfilling a mitzvah (מצוה) aseh that has kareis attached (bringing the korban Pesach (פסח)). The Gemara proves this from the incident in Yehoshafat's time when Chazal were mechadesh that a tevul yom may not enter Machaneh Leviyah, yet they still permitted entry for the purpose of bringing korbanot.
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 36b
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.
