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.
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.
