No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a metzora's obligation to shave override certain Torah (תורה) prohibitions but not others? The Gemara (גמרא) derives the principle that asei docheh lo saaseh she'eino shaveh ba'kol (a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment that does not apply equally to everyone). The shiur analyzes Rashi (רש"י)'s approach—that the entire discussion concerns lo saaseh she'eino shaveh ba'kol rather than a plain lav—and explores the conceptual difficulty of why "not applying equally" makes a prohibition weaker.
This advanced Gemara (גמרא) shiur analyzes Yevamos 5a, focusing on the derivation of the principle that asei docheh lo saaseh she'eino shaveh ba'kol (a positive commandment can override a negative commandment that does not apply equally to all people). The discussion centers on the mitzvah (מצוה) of a metzora (one with tzara'as) to shave all his hair, which seemingly conflicts with various Torah (תורה) prohibitions against cutting hair. The Gemara opens by establishing that the Torah's requirement for the metzora to shave his "rosh" (head) teaches that the positive commandment overrides even prohibitions like lo sakif (the prohibition against removing the payos/corners of one's head), which would normally be violated when shaving completely. The Gemara then explores whether this principle extends to different categories of prohibitions based on whether they apply universally (shaveh ba'kol) or only to certain people (eino shaveh ba'kol).
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.
