A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
The shiur analyzes the dispute between Rebbe Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding yibum with a pregnant yevama. When biya or chalitza is performed with a muberet, is it considered valid (shmo biya/chalitza) or not (lo shmo)? The Gemara (גמרא) explores what "yekayem" means—maintain the status quo or perform a new action—and whether remarriage, chalitza, or get is required after the birth reveals she was already pregnant.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Yevamos 35b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of yibum performed with a pregnant yevama (muberet) and the subsequent halachic implications. The central dispute is between Rebbe Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding whether biya with a muberet is considered valid biya (shmo biya) or not (lo shmo biya), and similarly for chalitza. The Gemara brings a challenge to Reish Lakish from a Mishna stating "ein havla cho kayom yekayem" (if she is not pregnant, he should maintain/establish the marriage). Rabbi Zweig examines Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation that the case must be one who was kones (performed yibum with) his yevama and it was later discovered she was pregnant (venimtsa muberet), not a case where he gave chalitza to a muberet woman. Rashi's distinction is critical because if the case were chalitza to a muberet, the word "yekayem" could mean he may perform yibum afterward (a support for, not a challenge to, Reish Lakish).
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.
