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.
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.
