No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a positive commandment (aseh) override a prohibition (lo taaseh)? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s attempt to derive this principle from milah, Pesach (פסח), and korban tamid overriding Shabbos (שבת). Each suggested source faces a refutation (pircha), revealing fundamental questions: Is it because the aseh is "stronger," or is there an independent rule that a lo taaseh was given conditionally, subject to any prior aseh?
This shiur provides a detailed analysis of Yevamos 5b, which explores the fundamental principle of aseh docheh lo taaseh—that a positive commandment overrides a prohibition. The Gemara (גמרא) attempts to derive this principle to show that yibum (levirate marriage) should override the prohibition of marrying one's brother's wife (achos ishto). The Gemara begins by trying to learn from milah (circumcision), which overrides Shabbos (שבת). The pircha (refutation) is "mah l'milah sheken nikras aleiha yibum ubrisis"—milah is unique because it carries the covenant (bris). Rabbi Zweig addresses two possible ways to understand this pircha: either it means milah is a "stronger" aseh than yibum, or it establishes an entirely different principle that only certain types of asayos override prohibitions. The problem with the first approach is conceptual: if we accept that an aseh can override a lo taaseh even when it's weaker than the prohibition, why should the relative strength between two asayos matter? Both are still weaker than the lo taaseh they override.
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.
