No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Tosfos introduce the principle of hechsher mitzvah (מצוה) rather than using the Gemara (גמרא)'s simpler answer of lifnei hadibbur? The shiur analyzes Tosfos's multi-layered approach to distinguishing kibud av from other mitzvos, exploring the relationship between ase kodem hadibbur, lo sa'aseh she'yesh bo kares, and the unique strength of hukash kevodo l'kavod Hamakom.
This shiur on Yevamos 5b-6a engages in a close reading of Tosfos on the topic of ase doche lo sa'aseh, focusing particularly on the case of kibud av v'em and its interaction with Shabbos (שבת). The Gemara (גמרא) attempts to derive from the pasuk of kibud av v'em that an ase can be doche (override) a lo sa'aseh she'yesh bo kares, but ultimately rejects this derivation with various pirchot (objections). Tosfos raises a fundamental question: Why does the Gemara need to introduce the principle of hechsher mitzvah (מצוה) as a pircha? The Gemara could have simply used the established principle that kibud av is an ase she'kodem hadibbur (a positive commandment given before the giving of the Torah (תורה) at Sinai), and therefore cannot teach us about mitzvos given later. Tosfos explains that we cannot rely on this distinction because we want to learn from all three cases—Pesach (פסח), milah, and tamid—and those mitzvos were also kodem hadibbur. Therefore, we need another answer: that kibud av is only a hechsher mitzvah (preparation for a mitzvah) rather than the mitzvah itself, and from hechsher mitzvah we cannot learn about the gufa (essence) of a mitzvah.
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-6a
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.
