No community start suggestion yet.
What does it mean for an issur to apply "equally to all" (shaveh bakol)? The shiur argues that a lav she'ein shaveh bakol signals the issur is not intrinsic (etzem) but a divine decree ("I don't want you to do it"), whereas a lav hashaveh bakol suggests something inherently wrong exists. This distinction shapes whether an aseh can push off a lav, and explains why the Gemara (גמרא)'s havamina assumed all issurim—even shaveh bakol—are non-intrinsic.
This shiur delves deeply into Yevamos 5a and the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of whether an aseh (positive commandment) overrides different categories of lavim (negative commandments). The central question is: what is the difference between a lav hashaveh bakol (a prohibition that applies equally to everyone) and a lav she'ein shaveh bakol (a prohibition that does not apply universally)? Rabbi Zweig presents a fundamental two-tier framework. The Gemara's havamina (initial assumption) was that an aseh can override even a lav hashaveh bakol. Rashi (רש"י) explains this requires understanding that even a lav hashaveh bakol is not intrinsically wrong (be'etzem). Instead, it reflects Hashem (ה׳)'s ratzon (will): "I don't want you to do this." When an aseh conflicts with such a lav, the aseh—Hashem's positive command to act—overrides the negative command. Both are expressions of divine will, but the aseh's positive directive is stronger.
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.
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.
