A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why can't we learn that an asei overrides a lo ta'aseh v'asei from the case of nazir? The shiur develops the Maharshal's approach that nazir represents dechuya (total displacement) rather than hutra (permission), because nazir is more shaveh b'chol than kohen. Once we understand nazir as dechuya, we can derive asei docheh lo ta'aseh without deriving the more stringent asei docheh lo ta'aseh v'asei.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental sugya in Yevamos 5a exploring the principle of asei docheh lo ta'aseh (a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment) and whether an asei can override a lo ta'aseh v'asei (a negative commandment reinforced by a positive commandment). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses the cases of nazir and metzora, both of whom are commanded to shave their hair, and examines how these cases interact with the general prohibition against shaving. The Gemara employs the principle of ein inyan—if a verse is not needed for its primary purpose, it may be applied elsewhere. The pasuk concerning nazir's requirement to shave would seem superfluous since we already know from kohen gadol that certain halachic categories override the prohibition. Rashi (רש"י) explains that the pasuk by nazir must teach us something additional about the nature of this override.
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.
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.
