A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What does hovel ishatrei ishatrei really mean—that one prohibition permits another, or that Torah (תורה) won't let a new prohibition undermine an existing heter? The Gemara (גמרא)'s language suggests the latter: when Torah removes a prohibition for yibum, no subsequent prohibition (like achos isha) can interfere. This reading resolves questions from the Binas Sodom (chometz-flavored milk) and Magen Avrohom (burning kelayim on yom tov).
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Yevamos 6a concerning the principle of hovel ishatrei ishatrei (הותר בהיתירא איתירא), exploring when one prohibition's removal permits what would otherwise remain forbidden. The core question is: what exactly does this principle mean, and when does it apply? The Gemara's basic case involves yibum (levirate marriage). Normally, a man's brother's wife (eshes ach) is forbidden, and so is his wife's sister (achos isha). The Gemara explores scenarios where someone marries a woman (nasa meis), she dies, and then he marries her sister (nasa chai)—or vice versa. When does the prohibition of achos isha or eshes ach apply, and when is it overridden by the yibum obligation?
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 6a
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.
