A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What is the status of eishes ach (a brother's wife) after the brother dies—does the prohibition persist or does it lift at death? The Gemara (גמרא) analyzes the machlokes between Rav Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding whether death removes the eishes ach prohibition or whether only chalitzah does. The shiur explores how the Rashba and Rambam (רמב"ם) understand the concept of shlichos in this context and how chalitzah affects all the brothers collectively.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental Gemara (גמרא) in Yevamos 6b dealing with a machlokes between Rav Yochanan and Reish Lakish concerning the nature of the prohibition of eishes ach (a brother's wife) after the brother's death. The central question is whether the issur of eishes ach is removed at the moment of death (beshas misah) or only through chalitzah or yibum. Rav Yochanan holds that after chalitzah, both the one who performed chalitzah and all the other brothers are prohibited only with a lav (prohibition punishable by lashes), not kares (spiritual excision). Reish Lakish maintains that after chalitzah there remains kares on everyone except the woman. The Gemara introduces two conceptual frameworks (svaros) to explain this dispute: one focusing on when the eishes ach prohibition is removed, and another involving the concept of shlichos (agency).
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 6b
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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
