A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does asei docheh lo taaseh apply only when delaying means losing the mitzvah (מצוה) entirely? The shiur analyzes Tosafot and Rashba's dispute about whether zrizus (alacrity) creates a genuine conflict requiring violation of Shabbos (שבת), or whether only an objective requirement to perform the mitzvah today constitutes a true steira. The case of sereifas bas kohen reveals whether postponable mitzvos have different criteria.
This shiur analyzes the fundamental principle of asei docheh lo taaseh (a positive commandment overrides a negative prohibition) through a profound dispute between Tosafot and the Rashba. The Gemara (גמרא) in Yevamos 5b discusses when a mitzvah (מצוה) obligation can override Shabbos (שבת) prohibitions, using the cases of burning nosar (leftover sacrificial meat), sereifas bas kohen (executing a kohen's daughter through burning), and binyan Beis Hamikdash (building the Temple). Tosafot asks why we need a specific passuk to teach that burning nosar doesn't override Shabbos - couldn't we derive from klayim betzitzis (the prohibition of shatnez overriding the mitzvah of tzitzis) that when you can perform the mitzvah tomorrow, you don't violate a prohibition today? Tosafot answers that without the passuk, we might have thought asei docheh lo taaseh applies even when postponement is possible, because we're learning from a case where the mitzvah would be entirely lost if not done immediately.
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 5b
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.
