No community start suggestion yet.
How do we know tzitzis permits shatnez both ways—wool tzitzis on a linen garment and linen tzitzis on a wool garment? The shiur analyzes Rava's contradiction between "min kanaf" and "semer pishtim" and explores whether the Gemara (גמרא) derives this through semuchin (juxtaposition) between the shatnez prohibition and the tzitzis commandment or through a migu argument.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of a complex sugya in Yevamos 4b, focusing on Tosfot's interpretation of how we derive that shatnez (the prohibition of wearing wool and linen together) is overridden by the mitzvah (מצוה) of tzitzis. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a fundamental question: why do Tannaim and Rabbi Shimon need to learn this halacha (הלכה) from Bamidbar when they could seemingly derive it from the juxtaposition (semuchin) in Devarim between the prohibition of shatnez and the commandment of tzitzis? The shiur carefully works through Rava's contradiction: one verse suggests "hakanaf min hakanaf" (the tzitzis must be from the same material as the garment's corner), while another suggests "semer pishtim" (tzitzis are made from wool and linen). Rabbi Zweig explores two fundamentally different approaches to understanding this steira. The first approach holds that Rava is deriving from the juxtaposition in Devarim that tzitzis must be made specifically from wool or linen—a substantive halachic innovation derived from proximity. The second approach, which the shiur ultimately gravitates toward, understands that we already know "es adochelo sasah" (this overrides that) from the semuchin, and Rava's question is merely about the direction of that override.
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.
