A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a yevama who is pregnant receive chalitza, or must we wait until she gives birth? The Gemara (גמרא) presents a fundamental dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish over whether we retroactively apply knowledge (iglo milson mafreya) when the child is later miscarried. The shiur analyzes multiple approaches in Tosafos (תוספות) and Nemuke Yosef regarding what determines the validity of chalitza—the embryo's current state or its ultimate fate.
This shiur provides an intensive analysis of Yevamos 35b, focusing on the fundamental machlokes between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding chalitza muberes (chalitza performed on a pregnant woman who is a yevama). The central question is whether chalitza can be validly performed before the outcome of the pregnancy is known, and whether we apply the principle of iglo milson mafreya (retroactive clarification) when the child is later miscarried. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a case where a yevama who is pregnant receives chalitza, and then later miscarries. The question arises: was the chalitza valid? If we say iglo milson mafreya—that the later miscarriage retroactively reveals that there was no viable child at the time of the chalitza—then the chalitza should be valid. However, Reish Lakish maintains that we do not say iglo milson mafreya in this case, while Rabbi Yochanan disagrees, stating "im yavo Eliyahu"—if Eliyahu the prophet would come and tell us the child's status, we could rely on that knowledge.
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 35b
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.
