A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a yevama perform chalitzah during the nine months after her husband's death, when she might be pregnant? The Gemara (גמרא) distinguishes between cases where a rov (statistical probability) clarifies the chalitzah's validity versus cases of true uncertainty. When the rov indicates she's pregnant, chalitzah is permitted; when her status is genuinely uncertain, rabbinic decree prohibits it to prevent confusion about chalitzah's effectiveness.
This shiur analyzes Yevamos 36a, focusing on the Mishna's ruling that a yevama whose husband went to a distant land cannot remarry without chalitzah, even years later. The core question is: why can't she rely on the rov (statistical probability) that most women give birth (rov nashim yoldos), which would suggest any child her husband might have fathered elsewhere has likely been born, eliminating her yibum obligation? Rashi (רש"י) explains that the Mishna addresses a specific case where the husband had a tzarah (co-wife) in the distant land. The concern is not just whether that co-wife had a child, but whether the husband might have married yet another woman. Rabbi Zweig explores why this concern exists and how to reconcile it with the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s formulation, which appears to focus on a different issue—whether the distant co-wife herself became pregnant.
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 36a
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.
