No community start suggestion yet.
Why doesn't a nidah remain forbidden to yibum forever, just like achos isha? The shiur unpacks Tosafot's difficult question: whether the issur that blocks yibum at the moment of nefilah creates a permanent eishes ach status. The core chiddush: only an issur specific to the yavam creates an eishes ach, not a blanket issur like nidah.
This shiur is a deep analysis of Tosafot on Yevamos 2a, addressing the difficult question of why a nidah who falls to yibum is permitted after she goes to the mikvah, whereas achos isha remains forbidden forever even after the sister dies. Tosafot asks: if both nidah and achos isha create an issur at the moment of nefilah that prevents yibum, why does the issur in the case of nidah disappear while the issur in achos isha remains permanent? The shiur opens with a presentation of Tosafot's question. Tosafot compares nidah to achos isha: when Reuven and Shimon are married to two sisters and Reuven dies, his wife (the yevamah) falls to Shimon. If Shimon's wife then dies, removing the achos isha issur, Shimon is still forbidden to do yibum. Tosafot asks: similarly, if the yevamah is a nidah, shouldn't she remain forbidden to yibum even after she goes to the mikvah and becomes tehorah?
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.
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.
