A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is the word "aleha" needed in the pasuk of yibum? The shiur explores whether ase docheh lo taaseh (a positive commandment overrides a negative one) applies to yibum, analyzing how the Gemara (גמרא) derives from "aleha" that without it, yibum might be permitted even when the yevama is an achos isha. The discussion touches on whether the mitzvah (מצוה) of yibum creates kiddushin or merely permits living together.
This shiur is an introduction to the opening Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 2a, focusing on fundamental questions about the nature of yibum and the principle of ase docheh lo taaseh she'yesh bo kares (whether a positive commandment overrides a negative prohibition punishable by kares). The Gemara asks several foundational questions based on the seemingly extra word "aleha" in the pasuk discussing yibum. The central kashas are: (1) Why does the Torah (תורה) need to write "aleha"? From the fact that this word is needed, we can infer that without it, the yevama would be mutar (permitted) to the yavam. But why should she be mutar without this word? (2) Why don't we say that the ase of yibum should push aside the lo taaseh of achos isha? (3) If there's a mitzvah (מצוה) of yibum but the woman is forbidden due to achos isha, shouldn't there at least be a requirement of chalitzah? (4) How do we know that the tzarah of an achos isha is also forbidden, and not just the ervah herself?
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!
Kiddushin 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.
