No community start suggestion yet.
When a mechusar kippurim enters the Beis Hamikdash, does the Torah (תורה) permit the issur of tuma or remove the tuma status entirely? Two approaches to the Gemara (גמרא)'s proof from cholel be'ishur ishur emerge: either the Torah takes away tuma status (making a baal keri also permissible), or the Torah permits the issur itself (meaning more tuma doesn't matter). The distinction shapes how cholel works for eishes ach/achos isha.
The shiur analyzes a complex Tosfos on Yevamos 7b dealing with the principle of cholel be'ishur ishur—the concept that when one prohibition is permitted, a related prohibition may also be permitted. The Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion centers on whether a mechusar kippurim (one who needs atonement) who is also a baal keri (ritually impure from seminal emission) may enter the Beis Hamikdash. The central question is: what is the nature of the heter for mechusar kippurim to enter the Mikdash? Rabbi Zweig presents two fundamentally different approaches to understanding the Gemara's principle. The first approach holds that when the Torah (תורה) permits a mechusar kippurim to enter for kaparah, it is not actually permitting the prohibition of tumah at all. Rather, the Torah removes the status of tuma entirely—for purposes of kaparah, the person is simply not considered tamei. This is a din of removing the gezeirah rather than making it mutar. According to this reading, the principle of cholel be'ishur ishur means that just as the first tuma (mechusar kippurim) does not apply, so too the second tuma (baal keri) should not apply.
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 7b
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.
