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.
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.
