A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When does a positive commandment override a prohibition? The shiur examines the Gemara (גמרא)'s principle of aseh docheh lo ta'aseh, distinguishing between prohibitions with kares (severe punishment) versus simple prohibitions. Rashi (רש"י)'s understanding is contrasted with Rav Chaim's framework, analyzing whether the principle applies differently to active mitzvos versus passive obligations, and exploring the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s distinction between Shabbos (שבת) and Yom Tov regarding shofar.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of the fundamental Talmudic principle of aseh docheh lo ta'aseh—when a positive commandment overrides a prohibition. The discussion centers on Yevamos 3b and the question of whether an aseh can override a lo ta'aseh she'yesh bo kares (a prohibition punishable by kares/excision). The shiur begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation of the Gemara (גמרא)'s question. According to Rashi, the fundamental question isn't simply about aseh docheh lo ta'aseh in general, but specifically about whether an aseh can override a lo ta'aseh she'yesh bo kares. Rashi understands that without a special teaching, we would assume that while an aseh might override a simple prohibition, it cannot override one carrying the severe punishment of kares. The Gemara's answer is that the general principle applies—aseh docheh lo ta'aseh—but then asks when this applies: does it work even for kares prohibitions?
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 3b
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.
