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.
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.
