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.
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.
