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.
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.
