A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When does an asei override a lo taaseh v'asei? The shiur distinguishes between issur asei (passive obligation) and mitzvas asei (active obligation), showing that the principle of asei docheh lo taaseh applies differently to each. The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s divergent psakim in Hilchos Shabbos (שבת) and Hilchos Yom Tov reflect this fundamental chakira.
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of the fundamental principle of asei docheh lo taaseh (a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment), with particular focus on when this principle applies when the negative commandment is itself coupled with a positive obligation (lo taaseh v'asei). The shiur opens by examining a difficulty in Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary on Yevamos 3b. Rashi explains that the Gemara (גמרא)'s original question was how an asei could override a lo taaseh sheyesh bo kares (a prohibition carrying the penalty of kares). According to Rashi, the Gemara initially assumed that asei docheh lo taaseh applies broadly, but was troubled by the severity of kares. However, this reading creates problems: why didn't the Gemara first address the simpler issue of asei docheh lo taaseh v'asei before tackling the kares dimension? Additionally, if the principle of asei docheh lo taaseh without a positive commandment is already well-established, the Gemara's flow seems disrupted.
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.
