A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why isn't bito she'hi bas ishto considered ein ma'alin min hadin? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira in Tosafos (תוספות): when two forbidden relationships combine, do they merely coexist quantitatively, or do they coalesce into a qualitatively new entity? The answer determines whether one is liable once or twice, and distinguishes the Rambam (רמב"ם) from the Raavad.
This advanced shiur analyzes Tosafos (תוספות) on Yevamos 2a, addressing the fundamental question of ein ma'alin min hadin in cases of combined forbidden relationships. The central problem is understanding when combining two issurim creates a new qualitative entity versus merely adding two quantitative violations together. Tosafos opens by asking why the principle of ein ma'alin min hadin doesn't apply to bito she'hi bas ishto (one's daughter who is also his wife's daughter). Normally, we cannot derive a prohibition through kal vachomer when it would create a more severe prohibition than either source. Yet the Gemara (גמרא) seems to assume that if we only had a pasuk saying "bito," we wouldn't apply it to bito min hasuaso because that case is already covered by the issur of bas ishto. This appears to contradict ein ma'alin min hadin - why shouldn't the combination of being both one's daughter and one's wife's daughter create a new, severer prohibition that would require its own pasuk?
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.
