No community start suggestion yet.
When a minor wife performs miyun (refusal), does she retroactively nullify the original marriage or only sever the yavam's zika? The shiur analyzes the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that miyun operates retroactively (nekra lemafreia) to permit relatives, the Baal HaMaor's opposing view that miyun only breaks zika and leaves the original kedusha intact, and the ramifications for tzaras bitah mema'enes.
The shiur opens with three core difficulties in the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of tzaras mema'enes. First, Tosfos asks: if miyun retroactively nullifies marriage, why should tzaras mema'enes be prohibited at all—she should be like any tzarah of an ervah who never entered kedusha. Second, there is a shakla v'tarya about whether the case is ba'al or yavam, and whether geirushin after miyun creates a new problem. Third, why does the Gemara delay its question from the Mishna—the Mishna says miyun during the yavam's lifetime permits the tzarah, so why didn't the Gemara immediately ask how tzaras mema'enes could ever be prohibited? Rabbi Zweig explains that the Rambam (רמב"ם) (Hilchos Gerushin 11:17) rules that a woman who performs miyun on a yavam is permitted to all the yavam's relatives except his father (due to the gezeirah of kalaso). The Maggid Mishneh explains this is because miyun operates retroactively (nekra lemafreia), erasing the original marriage as if she were never married at all. The Rambam further rules that if she performs miyun on one brother (Shimon), she is permitted to marry another brother (Levi). The Maggid Mishneh argues that this second ruling is the proof for the first: the only way Levi could marry her is if she is now a "stranger" (nochris) to the family, which demonstrates miyun undoes kedusha retroactively.
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 12a
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.
