No community start suggestion yet.
This shiur analyzes a complex Tosafot on Yevamos 4b addressing why soros sota doesn't need a special pasuk to be patur from yibum. The key chiddush: only an ervah—a prohibited relationship by its essence—patters a sarah; an issur eishes ach created by circumstances (like sota or shelo hayah b'olam) doesn't constitute ervah and therefore cannot patter. The shiur also explores a separate sugya on whether smuchin in Parshas Tzitzis teaches hilchos shatnez or hilchos tzitzis fabric.
The shiur opens with an analysis of a Gemara (גמרא) discussing tzitzis and shatnez. The Gemara in Yevamos 4b mentions that wool tzitzis may be placed on linen garments and vice versa, based on the principle of smuchin—the proximity of the parshah of tzitzis to the parshah of shatnez. Rabbi Zweig questions how this smuchin works: does it teach that shatnez is permitted for the mitzvah (מצוה) of tzitzis, or does it merely teach what fabrics are valid for tzitzis (wool and linen), independent of shatnez concerns? The difficulty is that if the smuchin only teaches one direction (e.g., wool on linen is permitted), how does the Gemara know the reverse (linen on wool) is also permitted? Rabbi Zweig suggests that perhaps the Gemara is not addressing shatnez at all. Instead, the smuchin teaches only about the valid fabrics for tzitzis—that tzitzis may be made from wool or linen, independent of the beged. This reading would avoid the problem of bidirectional smuchin. However, the Gemara's language—"wool for linen" and "linen for wool"—seems to imply a shatnez discussion, making this interpretation difficult.
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 4b
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.
