No community start suggestion yet.
Can an asei override a lo sa'aseh v'asei? The Gemara (גמרא) explores whether a nazir who becomes a metzora may shave (asei docheh lo sa'aseh). Rashi (רש"י)'s approach suggests the principle applies only when the issur is limited, while Tosafos (תוספות) distinguishes grades of she'eino shev v'akal. The shiur analyzes the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position and the mechanics of eino inyan.
The shiur analyzes Gemara (גמרא) Yevamos 5a, focusing on the fundamental principle of asei docheh lo sa'aseh v'asei — whether a positive commandment can override a prohibition that also has an associated positive commandment. The case under discussion is a nazir who becomes a metzora: may the asei of shaving for tzora'as override the lo sa'aseh and asei of nezirus that prohibit shaving? Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s position that ein asei docheh lo sa'aseh v'asei — a positive commandment does not override both a prohibition and a positive commandment together. Rashi explains that we know asei is not docheh in the case of sheish bekoros (firstborn animals) and also in the case of asei itself. The question is how Rashi knows this limitation applies broadly.
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.
