A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
May a woman use contraception when pregnancy poses danger? The Gemara (גמרא) discusses three women who may use a moch (contraceptive): a minor, a pregnant woman, and a nursing mother. Rabbi Meir and the Rabbanan debate whether contraception is obligatory or permissible, invoking "shomer p'sa'im Hashem (ה׳)." The shiur explores the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s psak, Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot's dispute over timing, and the broader implications for safek sakana, smoking, and health risks.
This shiur analyzes Yevamos 12a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of three women who may use a moch (contraceptive): a ketana (minor), a pregnant woman, and a nursing mother. Rabbi Meir holds that these women are obligated to use contraception due to the danger pregnancy poses in their condition. The Rabbanan (Chachamim) disagree, stating "shomer p'sa'im Hashem (ה׳)"—God protects the simple—and therefore contraception is permissible but not obligatory. Rabbi Zweig explores several fundamental questions arising from this machloket. The Rambam (רמב"ם) paskins that a sarit (barren woman) and even a sarit bito (the daughter of a barren woman who is also barren) are mutar—permitted without yibum, and the tzara is also mutar and requires chalitza miyibum. Rabbi Zweig questions why the Rambam presents these two halachot separately, and why he places the halacha (הלכה) of sarit ayeles together with chaivei lavin and chaivei esseh. The answer suggested is that the Rambam is teaching two distinct chiddushim: first, that a sarit ayeles is not an eshes ach—she does not create the prohibition of a brother's wife—because she never fell into the parsha of yibum. Second, even if she is also an erva (such as a bas, daughter), she does not create a din of tzaras habas because she was mufka (excluded) from the yibum obligation entirely. The Rambam's language "veha'rei ha'erva ayeles" (and behold the erva is barren) is analyzed—Rashi (רש"י) holds that this refers to a situation where the barrenness was known at the time, not discovered later, which has implications for the issur derabbanan of tzaras memaenes.
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.
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.
