No community start suggestion yet.
Why does an asei override only a lav she'einah shavah bachol? The shiur develops the principle that when neither commandment is absolute—both are einah shavah bachol—the Torah (תורה) employs hutra (the lav was never said here), not dehuyya (overriding). This explains why the Gemara (גמרא) cannot extrapolate from metzora to general asei docheh lav, and resolves multiple difficulties in Tosfos regarding yibum.
This intensive Gemara (גמרא) shiur addresses five major questions in the sugya of asei docheh lo ta'aseh (positive commandments overriding negative commandments) on Yevamos 2a. The central challenge is understanding the distinction between lav shavah bachol (a universal prohibition) and lav she'einah shavah bachol (a prohibition that doesn't apply to everyone), and how this affects the principle of asei docheh lav. The Gemara appears to indicate that a lav she'einah shavah bachol is weaker than a lav shavah bachol, since an asei can override it. Yet this seems problematic: if it's weaker, shouldn't the same logic apply to malkos (lashes)? Furthermore, the Gemara seems inconsistent—first treating lav she'einah shavah bachol as a kula (leniency), then as a chumra (stringency) regarding kohanim.
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 2a
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.
