No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Rebbe hold that safek safek permits a woman for yibum, whereas rov does not? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: safek safek involves no actual question—both paths lead to heter—whereas rov resolves an actual doubt. Rabbi Zweig shows that Rebbe permits only when there is no genuine sha'alah to answer, distinguishing this from mi'ut d'mi'ut.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Yevamos, dealing with the conceptual difference between safek safek (double doubt) and mi'ut d'mi'ut (minority of a minority) as they relate to Rebbe's position on yibum. The central question is how Rebbe can accept safek safek as grounds to permit a woman for yibum when he does not rely on rov (majority) in cases of doubt. Rabbi Zweig opens by examining the mathematical reality: a classical safek safek scenario yields only a 75-25 probability in favor of heter—seemingly just a mi'ut, not a mi'ut d'mi'ut. The Gemara's challenge is sharp: if Rebbe does not permit yibum based on rov, how can he permit based on safek safek, which appears to be only a mi'ut at best?
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 2a-3a
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.
