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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
