A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why can a positive mitzvah (מצוה) override a prohibition even when they're not simultaneous? The shiur develops four foundational yesodos: lav she'aino shenitan lekol is chuchra (complete uprooting), not dechiya; once an asa can override, even an asa she'aino shenitan lekol can override a lav shenitan lekol; the sevarah of chuchra remains true lamaskana; and finally, the profound implications for hechsher mitzvah, Reish Lakish's din, and the nature of ein asa dechol lo saasa.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of the fundamental principles governing the halachic concept of asa dechol lo saasa (a positive commandment overriding a prohibition), building on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion in Yevamos 5a. The shiur begins by reviewing several challenging questions raised in previous sessions about the mechanics of how a positive mitzvah (מצוה) can override a negative commandment. The first major question addressed is: How can someone else (the makif) perform the action when the mitzvah is on a different person (the nikuf)? For example, in the case of yibum, the mitzvah is on the man while the prohibition is on the woman. Similarly, in hakafa (removing corners of the beard), the prohibition of hakafa is on the makif (the one doing the cutting), while the mitzvah appears to be only on the nikuf (the one being cut). This creates a conceptual difficulty in applying the principle of asa dechol lo saasa.
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 5a
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.
