No community start suggestion yet.
Why does tzaras ervah not fall to yibum? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira: does the ervah actively patter the tzara by conferring a status of ervah (the limud of litzarah), or does the tzara simply not fall because when one wife doesn't fall to yibum, the entire bayis lacks zika? This distinction resolves the question of whether eshes ach should patter tzara and explains the shitos of Rashi (רש"י), Tosafos (תוספות), and the Rambam (רמב"ם).
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of the sugya of tzaras ervah on Yevamos 2a, focusing on the fundamental question of why the tzara of an ervah does not fall to yibum. The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that when a man dies leaving two wives, one of whom is forbidden to the yavam as an ervah, the tzara (co-wife) also does not fall to yibum. The question addressed is what mechanism accounts for this din. Rabbi Zweig develops a central chakira with two distinct approaches. The first approach, derived from the drasha of "litzarah," understands that the ervah actively patters the tzara by conferring upon her some status or quality of ervah. According to this mehalach, only certain types of arayos—specifically those involving she'er (blood relationship)—can patter a tzara. The logic is that yibum itself removes the issur of eshes ach, so eshes ach cannot be the type of ervah that patters a tzara. This is the position of Tosafos (תוספות) and perhaps the straightforward reading of the Yerushalmi cited by Rabbeinu Akiva Eiger.
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.
