A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Is the mitzvah (מצוה) of honoring parents (kibud av) rooted in listening to them or in giving them pleasure? The Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of hechsher mitzvah (preparation for a mitzvah) and the case of cooking on Shabbos (שבת) exposes a fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot: Rashi holds that the mitzvah is the act of listening itself, while Tosafot holds it is providing physical benefit.
This shiur explores Yevamos 5b-6a, focusing on the fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot regarding the nature of kibud av (honoring parents). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where a father asks his son to cook on Shabbos (שבת), and rules that the son is not obligated because "ein esseh docheh lo ta'aseh she'yesh bekores" (a positive commandment does not override a prohibition punishable by kares). The question arises: why would we think kibud av should override Shabbos in the first place? Tosafot explains that the act of cooking is merely a hachana l'mitzvah (מצוה) (preparation for the mitzvah) — not the mitzvah itself. The actual mitzvah is bringing the father food and giving him pleasure. Since the son is only in the preparation stage when cooking, this is not considered a full-fledged mitzvah that could override Shabbos. The Ramban (רמב"ן) adopts this approach but asks: if the father explicitly commanded the son to cook, shouldn't that very act of listening constitute the mitzvah? The Ramban answers by citing a Braisa in Kiddushin that defines kibud av as "machileu u'mashkeu, malbisho" (feeding, giving drink, and clothing) — acts that provide physical benefit, not mere obedience. Thus, listening to the father is not itself kibud; it is only a hechsher for providing him pleasure.
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 5b-6a
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.
