No community start suggestion yet.
When one brother performs chalitzah, does the prohibition of eishes ach return on the surviving woman? The shiur develops the fundamental machlokes between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish over whether yibum creates a zikah (connection) to each brother individually or to the bayis as a collective unit. This distinction determines whether chalitzah by one brother affects the status of all the brothers.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish in Yevamos 6b regarding the consequences of chalitzah on the status of the yevamah and tzarah. The Gemara (גמרא) asks whether after one brother performs chalitzah, there remains a prohibition of eishes ach with kares on the chalutza, on the tzarah, and on all the other brothers. Reish Lakish holds that there is kares—both on the brother who gave chalitzah regarding the chalutza, and on all brothers regarding the tzarah. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees, holding that there is no kares at all, neither on the chalutza nor on the tzarah, neither for the brother who performed chalitzah nor for the other brothers. The shiur explores the conceptual foundation of this dispute. One approach understands the machlokes to be about whether the prohibition of eishes ach can "return" once it has been removed. Reish Lakish holds that once the mitzvah (מצוה) of yibum creates a heter, the prohibition of eishes ach falls away; when chalitzah is performed and the heter is removed, the prohibition returns. Rabbi Yochanan rejects this—once eishes ach has fallen off, it cannot return. The shiur examines the pasuk "asher lo yivneh" which Rabbi Yochanan uses to reduce the prohibition from kares to a lav—a pasuk that appears to create a new issur rather than restore an old one.
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 6b
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.
