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.
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.
