No community start suggestion yet.
Does an asei push aside a lav she'eino shel bechol? The Gemara (גמרא) examines whether a positive commandment (metzora's shaving) can override prohibitions that don't apply to everyone (kohanim's prohibition on rounding the beard). The shiur traces the logical structure: we know asei docheh lo sa'aseh from shatnez, then explores whether kohanim—who face additional restrictions—represent a more stringent category that might resist being pushed aside.
This shiur analyzes Yevamos 5a, continuing the Gemara (גמרא)'s exploration of the principle that a positive commandment (asei) can override a negative prohibition (lo sa'aseh). The specific case examines whether the metzora's obligation to shave all his hair—including his beard and sideburns—overrides the prohibition against shaving, particularly for kohanim who have additional restrictions. The Gemara begins with the fundamental question according to Rabbanun: how do we know that an asei is docheh (pushes aside) a lo sa'aseh? Rabbi Zweig explains that the original source is from shatnez—the prohibition against wearing wool and linen together—which is overridden by the positive commandment of tzitzis. This establishes the basic principle. However, the Gemara encountered a problem: according to Rabbi Yehuda, we don't generally derive laws from semuchin (juxtaposed verses). The resolution was that even Rabbi Yehuda would agree when it's "muft me'umchak" (explicitly needed), and this is supported by the view of Tana D'vei Rabbi Shmuel.
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 5a
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.
