A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When does the isur of eishes ach terminate—at the brother's death or only with chalitza? The Gemara (גמרא) analyzes the dispute between Rebbe Yochanan (misah is matir) and Reish Lakish (chalitza is matir). The shiur develops a yesod that according to Reish Lakish, lo yivneh is the original eishes ach isur reduced from kares to a lav, while according to Rebbe Yochanan it is a new isur entirely.
The shiur explores the fundamental dispute between Rebbe Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding the nature of the prohibition against the chalitz marrying the yevamah after chalitza. The pasuk says "lo yivneh"—he shall not build—which carries only a lav (negative prohibition) rather than kares. Both Rebbe Yochanan and Reish Lakish need this pasuk, but they understand its function differently. According to Reish Lakish, without this pasuk there would be a chiyuv kares on even the chalitz himself, because she is an eishes ach. The pasuk comes to teach that on him specifically there is only a lav. But what creates this distinction? The shiur develops that Reish Lakish holds the chalitza "uses up" the zika—since the brother performed chalitza, he utilized the relationship in a way that reduces his prohibition from kares to lav. The other brothers, who did not perform chalitza, remain with the full isur of eishes ach with kares.
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
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.
