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.
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.
