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.
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.
