A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a statistical majority (rov) permit a yevama to remarry when we don't know if she gave birth? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: rov can say "there is no question" but cannot resolve an actual question. When a woman's status requires testimony (eidim) to change—as in yibum—a rov hatoli b'meisa (majority based on an assumed action) cannot overturn the existing chazaka.
This shiur addresses a fundamental question in Yevamos 36a regarding the interaction between rov (statistical majority), chazaka (presumptive status), and the principle of rov hatoli b'meisa (a rov based on an assumed action that occurred). The case involves a woman whose husband died childless, requiring yibum (levirate marriage) or chalitza. If she was pregnant when he died, after nine months we face a question: did she give birth (making her exempt from yibum), or not? The Gemara (גמרא) initially suggests that rov noshim mesabros v'yoldos (most pregnant women give birth to viable children) should permit her to remarry without chalitza. However, the Gemara rejects this because of a rabbinic decree: if we allowed remarriage based on this rov, and later it turned out there was no child (or the child was not viable), people might mistakenly think that a chalutza (one who underwent chalitza) is permitted to marry a Kohen.
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 36a
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.
