A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) derive that asei docheh lo saaseh from nazir rather than using ein inyan to transfer the pasuk of rosho to another halacha (הלכה)? The shiur analyzes Tosafos (תוספות)'s radical chiddush that ein inyan can create dinim with no applicability to the pasuk's plain meaning, contrasts this with Rashi (רש"י) who holds we preserve pshat whenever possible, and explores the hierarchy between lav hashaveh bakol, lav she'ein shaveh bakol, and asei she'ein shaveh bakol.
The shiur examines Yevamos 5a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of hakafas rosh (shaving the corners of the head) and the interplay between different derashos regarding nazir, Kohen, and Yisrael. The fundamental question is how the Gemara derives the principle that an asei is docheh a lav she'ein shaveh bakol from the pesukim of rosho (head) and zikno (beard). The shiur presents two leshonos in the Gemara regarding how we know that asei docheh lo saaseh. According to both leshonos, the mandomer who derives from rosho holds that hakafas kol rosh is considered hakafah (shaving) and therefore uses the pasuk to derive that asei docheh lo saaseh she'ein shaveh bakol. The only dispute between the leshonos concerns the mandomer from nazir: the first leshen says he uses the pasuk for nazir itself, while the second leshen says he already knows asei docheh lo saaseh from another source and therefore uses the pasuk for lo saaseh geridta (a regular lo saaseh) by nazir.
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.
