No community start suggestion yet.
How does eseh doche lo sa'aseh (positive commandments overriding prohibitions) work differently for regular prohibitions versus those carrying kareis (excision)? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction in Tosafot: regular prohibitions involve balancing worth, but prohibitions with kareis require negating the forbidden act itself, making hechsher mitzvah (מצוה) (preparation) principles work differently in each context.
This advanced shiur analyzes a complex Tosafot on Yevamos 6a dealing with the principle of eseh doche lo sa'aseh (a positive commandment overriding a prohibition). The central question is how the mechanism of dechiya (overriding) works and whether it operates the same way for regular prohibitions versus prohibitions carrying kareis. Rabbi Zweig begins by addressing the Marshas's question: Why does Tosafot invoke hechsher mitzvah (מצוה) (preparation for a mitzvah) when the Gemara (גמרא) hadn't yet established that kibud av v'em (honoring parents) is merely preparatory and not the actual mitzvah performance? The shiur explores whether the issue is that a hechsher shouldn't be doche at all, or whether the problem is specifically the lack of bi'idan (simultaneity) between the prohibition and the mitzvah.
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 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.
