No community start suggestion yet.
When a yavam gives chalitza and then marries the yevama, what is her status to the other brothers? The shiur analyzes the dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish on zikah and explores whether her new status is a reduced eishes ach or a new issur of "lo yivneh," examining whether this belongs in Sefer HaMitzvos and how kiddushin operates post-chalitza.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Yevamos 6b-11a, focusing on the complex mechanics of chalitza and kiddushin in yibum situations. The primary sugya addresses what happens when one brother gives chalitza and then marries the yevama, or when another brother attempts kiddushin afterward, and how this affects the prohibition of eishes ach on the other brothers. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a fundamental dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding the nature of zikah (the yibum connection). According to Reish Lakish, as explained by the Maharalach, zikah is an obligation only to the bayis (the family unit), not to any individual brother. Therefore, there is no personal relationship between any brother and the yevama, and the issur eishes ach remains on all brothers until yibum or chalitza. According to Rabbi Yochanan, however, the zikah is personal to each brother ("me'igami diboi hai, iboi hai"), creating a personal relationship that removes the eishes ach prohibition from the outset.
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-11a
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.
