A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Is the prohibition against using a moch (contraceptive device) rooted in the mitzvah (מצוה) of procreation or in the category of forbidden relations? The shiur analyzes Rashi (רש"י), Tosafot, and the Rambam (רמב"ם) to show that the same physical act can sometimes constitute bittul mitzvat pru u'revu and sometimes constitute zenut (forbidden relations), depending on whether the marriage is l'shem ishut (for the sake of a relationship) or merely l'shem bi'ah (to permit physical relations).
This shiur examines the sugya in Yevamos 12b concerning a woman's use of a moch (contraceptive device) and the nature of the prohibition of hashchatzas zera (wasting seed). The Gemara (גמרא) presents a machlokes between Rabbi Meir and the Chachamim regarding whether a woman may use a moch. According to Rashi (רש"י)'s understanding, both sides agree there is an issur of hashchatzas zera; the dispute centers on whether sakana (danger) permits overriding this prohibition. The Chachamim invoke the principle of shomer pesa'im Hashem (ה׳)—God protects the simple—arguing that since many people engage in this practice without negative consequences, there is no real danger, and thus no heter. The fundamental difficulty Rabbi Zweig addresses is: How can a woman be commanded in hashchatzas zera when she is not commanded in the mitzvah (מצוה) of pru u'revu? The shiur rejects the straightforward answer of the Ramban (רמב"ן) (that she is prohibited from destroying the man's seed) because Rashi and Tosafot explicitly frame this as the woman's own obligation in hashchatzas zera. This requires a conceptual explanation of what this issur represents.
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 12b
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.
