No community start suggestion yet.
The Gemara (גמרא) asks: from where do we know that juxtaposed verses (semuchim) teach a halachic relationship? The shiur examines multiple approaches in the Rishonim—Rashi (רש"י), Rambam (רמב"ם), Tosafot, and Rashba—to how semuchim work in the case of Yevamos 4a, where lo sachsom shor ("do not muzzle an ox") is adjacent to the laws of yibum. Does juxtaposition mean reconciling conflicting laws, or does it mean absorbing one law into the other?
This shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא) in Yevamos 4a, which addresses a fundamental question: from where in the Torah (תורה) do we derive that juxtaposed verses (semuchim) teach us substantive halachic relationships? The Gemara brings two examples: the juxtaposition of shaatnez (the prohibition of wearing wool and linen) with tzitzis, and the juxtaposition of lo sachsom shor b'disho (the prohibition of muzzling an ox while it threshes) with the laws of yibum (levirate marriage). Rabbi Zweig opens by questioning why the Gemara needs a special limud (derivation) for semuchim at all. If the principle of ein mukdam u'meuchar baTorah—that the Torah is not written in chronological order—is already established, then the very fact that two parshiyos are written next to each other should automatically signal a relationship. The answer suggested is that semuchim must be a subdivision of gezeirah shavah, a method of comparison that requires its own independent source. While gezeirah shavah compares similar words across different contexts, semuchim compares adjacent passages and requires us to read them in conjunction.
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 4a
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.
