A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna omit tzaras tzara (the co-wife of a co-wife)? The shiur develops the principle that only an actual ervah creates an issur on her tzara; where the prohibition stems from kedushei rishon (lack of nefila), not an ervah relationship to the yavam, no tzaras tzara issur is generated. Two interpretations of echad l'baal echad l'baal are explored through Tosfos.
This shiur analyzes Gemara (גמרא) Yevamos 3b's discussion of why the Mishna does not list tzaras tzara (the co-wife of a co-wife of an ervah) among the fifteen women who exempt their co-wives from yibum. The transcript opens with the question: the Gemara says "lefi she'eino b'tzaras tzara" — because there is no case of tzaras tzara — but this answer seems to lack substance. Why should a technical absence of cases remove a category from the Mishna's teaching? If the Mishna is listing halachic principles, a technical problem should be irrelevant. Rabbi Zweig rejects the surface reading that the Gemara is referring to a mere technical difficulty in constructing a case (since a tzara of a sotah is automatically also a tzara to all the brothers, making tzaras tzara impossible to isolate). Instead, the shiur establishes a fundamental conceptual distinction: the Mishna deals exclusively with ervahs — relationships where the woman herself becomes an ervah to the yavam. By contrast, tzaras tzara is not rooted in an ervah relationship at all. The prohibition on a tzara of a sotah, or a tzara of an ailonis, arises because there is no nefila (falling into yibum) from the first husband — the defect is in kedushei rishon, not in the yavam's relationship to the woman. Rashi (רש"י) emphasizes this point: where the issur stems from kedushei rishon, the woman is not "my ervah," and therefore her co-wife is not "tzaras ervah." Consequently, a tzara who remarries does not generate tzaras tzara, because the underlying issur was never one of ervah in the first place.
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 3b
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.