No community start suggestion yet.
Why is milah on the eighth day permitted on Shabbos (שבת), but not on later days? The shiur analyzes Rashi (רש"י)'s formulation about "ashe shelo" and the Gemara (גמרא)'s answer involving thirteen covenants. The key distinction emerges between the mitzvah (מצוה) of milah itself and the special mitzvah of Yom HaShmini, with implications for the entire logic of binyan av when learning out that positive commandments override negative ones.
This shiur on Yevamos 5b focuses on a fundamental question in the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of which positive commandments override negative prohibitions. The opening challenge is understanding Rashi (רש"י)'s language: when explaining why milah overrides Shabbos (שבת), Rashi says "mimila shelo" – from the accomplishment of milah. What does "ashe shelo" add that the word "milah" alone wouldn't convey? Rabbi Zweig explains that Rashi is distinguishing between milah as a mitzvah (מצוה) and the specific mitzvah of performing milah on Yom HaShmini (the eighth day). Milah itself, when performed not at its proper time (shelo bizmanah), does not override Shabbos. It's specifically the mitzvah ashe of performing milah on the eighth day that is docheh (overrides) Shabbos. This leads to examining why the Gemara says that on Yom HaShmini, milah was "nichras alah yud gimel brisos" (established with thirteen covenants).
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.
