No community start suggestion yet.
Why is a safek sotah (suspected adulteress) subject to chalitzah but exempt from yibum? The Gemara (גמרא) asks: if "tumah" is written even by safek sotah, shouldn't she be fully forbidden like a vadai sotah? The shiur develops multiple mehalchim—whether safek tumah creates a real issur, whether yichud itself is arayos, and whether safek is treated ke'vadai—and shows how Tosafot and the Raavad diverge on the fundamental nature of safek tumah.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Nedarim 10a-11b addressing the halachic status of a safek sotah (woman suspected of adultery) regarding chalitzah and yibum. The central question is: if the Torah (תורה) writes "tumah" on a safek sotah, why is she only prohibited from yibum but still subject to chalitzah? Why doesn't the tumah designation completely exempt her from chalitzah as well? Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary on the Mishna, which states that a woman who entered into yichud (seclusion) with another man and remained there long enough for intimacy (kedei tumah) is forbidden to her husband and forbidden to eat terumah if she is a kohenes. Rashi's choice of case—a kohenes eating terumah from her father's house rather than the simpler case of an eishes kohen (wife of a kohen) eating terumah—raises questions. Rabbi Zweig suggests several possibilities: perhaps safek tumah does not prohibit a wife of a kohen from eating terumah (only a daughter of a kohen); perhaps the prohibition is specifically related to becoming a chalalah rather than a zonah; or perhaps the kenyan kaspo (ownership rights) of the husband are not removed by safek tumah.
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!
Nedarim 10a-11b
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.
