No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא)'s proof that asei docheh lo sa'aseh employ different types of pirchos when learning from one source versus from two? The shiur develops a three-tier chakira: chad me'chad means the asei itself is stronger than the lo sa'aseh; ma'ad sa'ad (two sources) means the lo sa'aseh was restricted from the start; and learning from three means the din is weaker still—less than fully reasoned, more halachic necessity.
This Gemara (גמרא) shiur on Yevamos 5b tackles one of the most nuanced sugyos in Shas regarding the principle of asei docheh lo sa'aseh—that a positive commandment can override a negative one. The shiur begins by noting a structural oddity: why does the Gemara take a circuitous route through various proofs before arriving at the clearest example—milah docheh Shabbos (שבת), a lo sa'aseh she'yesh bo kares? The Gemara could have begun immediately with that proof instead of first establishing the principle of asei docheh lo sa'aseh grade then (in general) through Rosh Hashanah's shofar. Rabbi Zweig's central insight is that the Gemara's structure is not haphazard but reflects fundamentally different modes of limud (derivation). He proposes a three-tier chakira—a conceptual analysis—of how pirchos (refutations) function differently depending on whether we learn from one source (chad me'chad, a binyan av), two sources (ma'ad sa'ad), or more. This chakira is not explicitly stated by the Gemara but emerges from the pattern of questions and answers throughout the sugya.
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 5b
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.
