A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can an aseh override a lo taaseh punishable by kares in the context of yibum? The shiur presents several fundamental challenges to the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion: if kiddushin doesn't take effect with chayavei krisus, how can yibum work at all? And how can we speak of aseh docheh lo taaseh when only the man has the mitzvah (מצוה) while both have the issur?
This shiur analyzes Yevamos 3b, which discusses the principle of aseh docheh lo taaseh she'yesh bo kares (whether a positive commandment can override a prohibition punishable by kares) in the context of yibum. Rabbi Zweig presents multiple foundational questions on the Gemara (גמרא)'s logic and assumptions. The Gemara asks whether aseh docheh lo taaseh she'yesh bo kares. The first major difficulty raised is fundamental: if we're dealing with chayavei krisus (prohibited relations punishable by kares), then kiddushin should not be tofes (take effect) at all. The Gemara later states explicitly that by chayavei lavin (regular prohibitions), kiddushin is tofes, which is why one can fulfill the mitzvah (מצוה) of yibum despite the issur. But by chayavei krisus, kiddushin is not tofes. If kiddushin isn't tofes, then how can the woman become the yavam's wife through yibum? And if she doesn't become his wife, how has he fulfilled the mitzvah of yibum at all? The Gemara's entire discussion of aseh docheh seems irrelevant—the fundamental mechanism of yibum shouldn't work.
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.
