A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why doesn't a niddah fall into the category of arayos that are excluded from yibum? The shiur analyzes Tosfos and the Rosh, distinguishing between exclusion from yibum (like arayos) versus prohibition of yibum (like chayavei lavin). An issur that is omed to go off—such as niddah—creates neither exclusion nor nesirah, because it defines a temporary state rather than the essence of the woman.
This shiur on Yevamos 2a centers on a fundamental question: Why is a niddah not considered an ervah that would exclude a yevama from the entire parsha of yibum? The Gemara (גמרא)'s own answer—that an ervah requires bal lo kanah (the marriage takes effect), whereas with a niddah, bal kanah (it does)—leaves Tosfos dissatisfied. Tosfos asks: a niddah is listed among the arayos in the Torah (תורה) and the hekesh should make her like the fifteen arayos that are excluded from yibum. Why, then, does the kedusha of yibum take effect at all? Tosfos offers two answers. First, a niddah is not truly comparable to the other arayos because those issurim are permanent, whereas niddah is omed litahar—the issur is destined to go off once she immerses in the mikvah. This distinction, Tosfos suggests, removes her from the category of ervah. Second, Tosfos argues that in bal kanah—the fact that kiddushin would take effect—demonstrates that she is not in the same parsha as the arayos enumerated in the context of yibum.
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.
