No community start suggestion yet.
How can deception be a vehicle for truth? The Ramchal's principle that Yaakov embodies the tikkun of the nachash—not by negating sheker but by utilizing it to reveal emes—explains Yaakov's use of "mirmah" with Yitzchok and Lavan. This yesod distinguishes between the middah of Yaakov (using ra for tov) and the middah of Yisrael (complete srurah), and clarifies why Leah is Yaakov's wife while Rochel is Yisrael's.
This shiur develops a fundamental hashkafic principle about the nature of tikkun and the middah of Yaakov Avinu. The central question addressed is how Yaakov's seeming deception—taking the brachos from Yitzchok, deceiving Lavan—can be understood not merely as justified means to an end, but as the essence of his spiritual mission. The shiur opens with a discussion of semichas haparshiyos and the principle that Mishneh Torah (תורה) has some aspect of Torah she'baal peh, referencing Gemara (גמרא) Megillah daf lamed. This sets up a framework for understanding how the structure of Torah itself reveals deeper meanings.
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 5a
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.
