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.
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.
