(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Yevamos 5

YEVAMOS 5 - generously sponsored by Lee and Marsha Weinblatt of Teaneck, N.J. -- may Hashem protect them and all that is theirs!

1) We just learned 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh' from the Semuchim "Lo Silbash Sha'atnez ... Gedilim Ta'aseh Lach". But that Derashah is learned by Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael exclusively.
On what grounds do the Rabbanan disagree with it?


(a) The Pasuk writes in Kedoshim "Lo Sakifu Pe'as Roshchem".
What do we learn from the Pasuk in Metzora "Rosho"?

(b) Why must this Tana hold 'Hakafas Kol ha'Rosh Sh'mah Hakafah'?

(c) On what grounds do we reject this as source for 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh'? What makes the La'av of Hakafah different than a regular La'av?

(d) From where do we know that the woman too, is Chayav for transgressing the La'av of Achos Ishah?

(a) By whom does the Torah write in Emor "u'Pe'as Zekanam Lo Yegaleichu"?

(b) What is then the significance of the Pasuk in Metzora "Zekano"?

(c) We try to use this as our source for 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh'.
But did we not just say refute a similar proof, on the basis of a similar La'av (that of 'Lo Sakifu') being a 'La'av she'Eino Shaveh ba'Kol'? So why should this case be any different?

(d) On what grounds do we refute this proof, too? Why are Kohanim different?

(a) So we try to use as our source (for 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh') the Beraisa which says that "Rosho" of Metzora overrides the Lo Sa'aseh of Nazir "Ta'ar Lo Yavo Al Rosho".
On what grounds do we reject this? What makes the La'av of Nazir different?

(b) How do we prove this refutation? What would we otherwise learn from the fact that the Asei of Metzora overrides the La'av of Nazir that is incorrect?

Answers to questions



(a) So we revert to our original Pasuk to learn 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh' (even according to the Rabbanan of Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael) from the S'muchim of "Lo Silbash Sha'atnez ... Gedilim Ta'aseh Lecha". We first try to learn it from the word "Gedilim".
What makes "Gedilim" Mufneh?

(b) We reject this however, on the grounds that the word is needed.
What do we learn from "Gedilim?

(c) "Yachdav" too, is not Mufneh, because it is needed.
What do we learn from it?

(d) On what grounds do we initially reject the contention that the word "Sha'atnez" is Mufneh? What does "Sha'atnez" stand for?

6) What is ...
  1. ... Shu'a?
  2. ... Tavuy?
  3. ... Nuz?
7) We ultimately conclude that "Sha'atnez" is Mufneh after all.
How is this possible (see Tosfos DH 'Kulah')?


(a) We now need to prove that 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh' even by a La'av she'Yesh Bo Kareis (in order that "Alehah" should be required to preclude Achos Ishto from the Mitzvah of Yibum).
Why can we not learn this from the following, all of which override Shabbos:
  1. ... B'ris Milah?
  2. ... Korban Pesach?
  3. ... Korban Tamid?
(b) So why can we not learn it from a combination of ...
  1. ... Pesach and Milah?
  2. ... Pesach and Tamid?
  3. ... Milah and Tamid?
(c) The Tana who learns that the Olah that they brought at Har Sinai was not the Olas Tamid might indeed learn 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh she'Yesh Bo Kareis' from these two.
Which Olah *did* they bring there, according to him?

(d) Why can we not learn 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh she'Yesh Bo Kareis' from all three, Milah, Pesach and Tamid?

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Ish Imo ve'Aviv Tira'u, ve'es Shabsosai Tishmoru, *Ani Hashem*"?

(b) How do we try to learn from there that 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh she'Yesh Bo Kareis'?

(c) How do we refute this proof?

Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,