No community start suggestion yet.
Does lo titgodedu apply when different communities pasken differently, or only when their observable practices diverge within one city? The shiur develops the fundamental distinction: if lo titgodedu governs psak halacha (הלכה), two cities may not differ; if it governs hanhaga (observable practice), two cities may differ, but one city may not. This chakira illuminates the Gemara (גמרא)'s shift from amud beis to amud alef and has major implications for whether minhagim trigger lo titgodedu.
This shiur analyzes Yevamos 13b-14a, focusing on the sugya of lo titgodedu and the Gemara (גמרא)'s evolving understanding of when the prohibition applies. The discussion opens with unresolved questions from the previous shiur about Rashi (רש"י)'s position on whether the kashya changes from three zmanim (reading times for Megillah on the 11th, 14th, and 15th) to two zmanim, and what role minhag plays in that shift. The Gemara's progression moves from an initial question of lo titgodedu raised by Reish Lakish regarding Megillah readings, through Rabbi Yochanan's challenge about makom shenagu (where they observed certain practices), to the more fundamental case of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel's disagreement about tzaras ha'ach (permitting a yavam to marry his brother's wife's co-wife). The key turn comes when the Gemara distinguishes between minhag (custom) and din (law), suggesting initially that lo titgodedu does not apply to mere minhag.
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 13b-14a
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.
