A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When does moving your body while an object rests on it create Shabbos (שבת) carrying liability? The shiur analyzes the concept of akiras gufo through Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot's frameworks, showing that the key issue is whether an object placed on someone's body is considered 'at rest' or remains in a state of potential movement that triggers the melacha.
This shiur examines a fundamental question in the laws of carrying on Shabbos (שבת): when does moving one's body while an object is placed upon it constitute a prohibited act? The discussion centers on Masechta Shabbos daf 3a and the concept of 'akiras gufo' - whether bodily movement creates liability for carrying. Rabbi Zweig begins by analyzing Rashi (רש"י)'s position that there is a distinction between placing an object in someone's hand versus on their body. According to Tosafot's understanding of Rashi, if you place something in a person's hand and they walk, this is not considered 'akira' (lifting), but if you place it on their body and they walk, this does constitute akira. The core question emerges: what exactly is the Gemara (גמרא)'s inquiry (shailah)? The shiur explores whether the issue is about the relationship between akira and hanachah (placing down) - specifically, whether an object must change its physical location for these actions to be considered complete. Rabbi Zweig discusses different approaches to understanding this sugya. One possibility is that the question relates to whether the first person's akira is nullified (batel) when the object is placed on someone else. Another approach suggests the issue is whether something placed on a person's body is considered 'munach' (at rest) or not. The analysis delves into the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s formulation of these halachos, noting that he presents two separate laws: one prohibiting embarrassing a rabbi by asking difficult questions, and another prohibiting asking questions unrelated to the current topic of study. This suggests there are two distinct concerns at play. The shiur examines various cases and their implications, including the scenario where someone picks up an object 'al manas l'hotzi' (with intent to take it out) and the consequences when that intent changes. Throughout, Rabbi Zweig grapples with the precise definitions of akira and hanachah, and when exactly the melacha of hotza'ah (carrying) begins and ends. The discussion touches on practical applications and the broader principles governing Shabbos carrying prohibitions, ultimately seeking to clarify the precise circumstances under which one becomes liable for the melacha of carrying through bodily movement.
Shabbos 3a
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.
