A free account is required to play videos and download files.
Why is a thrower liable when someone catches his object while standing still, but exempt when the catcher moves to intercept it? The shiur develops the principle that true hanachah requires active placement, not merely stopping someone else's force. Moving to catch demonstrates passive interference rather than the deliberate act of placing down required for Shabbos (שבת) liability.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of a sugya in Masechta Shabbos (שבת) dealing with the halachic principles of throwing and catching on Shabbos. The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that if someone throws an object and another person stands in his place and receives it (עמד במקומו וקבל), the thrower is liable. However, if the receiver moves from his original position to catch it (עקר במקומו וקבל), the thrower is exempt. Rabbi Zweig explores the fundamental question of why this distinction exists, examining the commentaries of Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות). The core issue revolves around whether the act of catching constitutes a proper מעשה הנחה (act of placing down) in halachic terms. Rashi explains that when someone moves to catch an object, this is not considered a true hanachah because the person is merely stopping someone else's force rather than actively placing the object down. The shiur discusses the principle that for a complete melachah of hotzaah (carrying out) on Shabbos, there must be akirah (uprooting), hotzaah (carrying), and hanachah (placing down), all performed with intent. When someone passively receives or merely interrupts another's throwing motion, this does not constitute the active placement required for liability. Rabbi Zweig also analyzes a parallel case in the Rambam (רמב"ם) involving throwing an object while holding it with a rope, which similarly demonstrates that interfering with one's own original force may not constitute proper hanachah. The shiur concludes with practical halachic implications, noting that if someone throws an object on Shabbos, others would be obligated to catch it since their catching would not constitute a forbidden hanachah, thereby preventing the thrower from completing the prohibited melachah.
Masechta Shabbos
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.
