A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When does a positive commandment override a prohibition? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s principle of asei doche lo taaseh versus asei v'lo taaseh, exploring two fundamental approaches: Rav Chaim's view that override occurs only to gain credit (limited to isur asei cases), versus the alternative that active mitzvos inherently outweigh passive ones. The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s distinction between Shabbos (שבת) (isur asei) and Yom Tov (mitzvas asei) emerges as key to resolving apparent contradictions.
This advanced shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of the fundamental principle of asei doche lo taaseh—when a positive commandment overrides a prohibition—examining the sugya in Yevamos 3b and its ramifications throughout Shas. The shiur begins with Rashi (רש"י)'s difficult approach to the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion, noting that Rashi's reading creates significant textual and logical problems: the Gemara's flow doesn't work, and the question of why the kashya wasn't asked differently remains unexplained. The shiur introduces the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s rulings in Hilchos Shofar as a springboard for analysis. The Rambam rules that on Yom Tov, one may not violate even a rabbinic prohibition (shvus) to obtain a shofar, because ein asei doche lo taaseh v'asei. Yet the Rambam also rules that mi'ikar hadin, shofar blowing would override Shabbos (שבת) prohibitions. The Lechem Mishne struggles with this apparent contradiction: if Shabbos has both a lo taaseh and an asei, how could shofar ever be doche?
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 3b
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.
