No community start suggestion yet.
Why does an eseh only override a lo sa'aseh she'eino shaveh bakol (not universally applicable) and not one shaveh bakol (universally applicable)? The shiur analyzes Tosfot's approach that when eseh docheh lo sa'aseh works, it's because the eseh is more chamur (stringent) than the prohibition. The analysis explores whether lo sa'aseh v'eseh means the eseh fortifies the prohibition, or they remain separate.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of Tosfot on Yevamos 5a, focusing on the fundamental principle of eseh docheh lo sa'aseh (a positive commandment overrides a negative prohibition) and the critical distinction between mitzvos that are shaveh bakol (universally applicable) versus eino shaveh bakol (not universally applicable). The Gemara (גמרא) addresses why we need a separate passuk to teach that eseh docheh lo sa'aseh by nazir. According to one approach (the "second shot"), we learn eseh docheh lo sa'aseh from rosho (cutting off the first of the wool), which is universally applicable. The question arises: if rosho already teaches this principle, why do we need nazir to teach the same thing? Tosfot explains that nazir is needed specifically because it involves a lo sa'aseh she'eino shaveh bakol—not everyone can be a nazir. This represents a different category that cannot be derived from rosho alone.
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.
