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.
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.
