A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a yevamah be coerced to perform yibum with a mukeh shechin yavam? The Gemara (גמרא) derives from "lo techasum shor bedisho" that she cannot be muzzled. The shiur contrasts the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s approach—treating yibum like regular ishus where the woman is a principle—with the Rashba and Meiri who see yibum as potentially coercive (bal korcha), treating the woman more as an object of the mitzvah (מצוה).
This shiur analyzes Yevamos 3b-4a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s statement that when a yevamah falls to a yavam who is a mukeh shechin (afflicted with boils), we do not "chosum" (muzzle) her objection. The Gemara derives this principle from the pasuk "lo techasum shor bedisho" (do not muzzle an ox while it threshes). The shiur begins by examining what "ein chosmim oso" means. Rashi (רש"י) in Makos 23b explains it means we would have screamed at her to prevent her objection—pressuring her without actual physical force, since yibum cannot be done completely bal korcha (against her will). However, the Gemara's language in Yevamos suggests a stronger havamina: that we could actually force (kofa) her to be miyabem. The Meiri and Rashba explain this havamina stems from "yevamah yavo aleha"—the Torah (תורה)'s language suggests yibum can be done even bal korcha, leading to a potential havamina that we could coerce her for yibum.
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 3b-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.
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.
