No community start suggestion yet.
What creates the din of tumah that exempts a sotah from yibum and chalitza? The shiur analyzes whether tumah stems from removing the woman from the husband's reshus (davar she'b'ervah) or merely from her becoming assur. This chakira resolves apparent contradictions between sugyos in Yevamos and Sotah regarding Eishes Kohen shenensa, and explains the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s rulings on eid echad b'tumah and sotah safeik.
This shiur addresses fundamental questions about the nature of tumah as it relates to sotah and yibum. The central issue is understanding the principle of "tumah ksiva b'karayus" — that a sotah who has definitively committed adultery does not fall to yibum or chalitza — and distinguishing it from sotah safeik, who requires chalitza but not yibum. The Nimukei Yosef raises a critical question: Does an Eishes Kohen shenensa (the wife of a Kohen who was violated through ones) have the same din as a sotah vadai? The shaila turns on whether tumah ksiva b'karayus applies only when she was mezanah b'ratzon, or whether any case where she becomes assur to her husband creates tumah. This question has major implications for whether her tzarah would require chalitza if the husband died.
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 11a
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.
