A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When does placing objects on water constitute proper hanacha on Shabbos (שבת)? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s cases (water on water, nuts on water, oil on wine) through the lens of whether hanacha requires both stability and ground connection. The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s distinction between hanacha and akira cases reveals that hanacha needs only immediate stability, while akira requires both elements.
This shiur provides a detailed analysis of Gemara (גמרא) Shabbos (שבת) 5b, focusing on the fundamental question of when placing objects on water constitutes a proper act of hanacha (placing) or akira (lifting) that would render one liable for violating Shabbos. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary on the phrase 'mayim agav mayim' (water upon water), exploring whether this refers to the top waters or bottom waters being in motion (nayid). The discussion reveals that according to Rashi, the problem is that the waters are in motion, making it unclear whether this constitutes proper placement. The Gemara's progression through various cases is analyzed: mayim agav mayim (water on water), egos agav mayim (nuts on water), and shemen agav yayin (oil on wine). Rabbi Zweig explains that the fundamental issue is determining what constitutes proper hanacha - whether the object must be stationary in relation to what it's placed upon, and whether it must also be connected to the ground (karka). According to the analysis, mayim agav mayim has both elements present (it becomes one unified substance and rests on the ground), while egos agav mayim has neither element.
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!
Shabbos 5b
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.
Up Next in this Series
How can Shabbos observance atone for the idolatry of Enosh's generation? The Rambam's reading shows that generation sought God through physical intermediaries rather than direct connection. Proper Shabbos observance creates authentic divine experience that naturally displaces attraction to spiritual substitutes - like tasting real coffee exposes ersatz as meaningless.
Why does the Gemara say one Shabbos protects from Amalek while two Shabboses bring redemption? The shiur applies a principle from Kiddushin about repetition changing psychology: the first time doing anything is experimental, but the second demonstrates genuine desire. True Shabbos connection with Hashem requires moving beyond spiritual curiosity to authentic internalization.
Why does the Gemara pray to be 'among those who eat three meals on Shabbos' rather than simply to fulfill the mitzvah? The shiur develops that Shabbos eating means 'tasting the day itself' - mindful appreciation that connects us to Shabbos's spiritual quality. This requires discipline and community support, with three meals corresponding to distinct phases of Shabbos time.
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.
