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.
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.
