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.
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.
