A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When bread gets stuck in an oven on Shabbos (שבת), may one remove it before baking completes? The shiur resolves contradictory rulings by distinguishing two separate halachos: violating 'lo sa'aseh kol melacha' occurs immediately when performing the action, while actual 'chilul Shabbos' only happens when the melacha completes.
This shiur presents a profound analysis of Masechta Shabbos (שבת) 4a regarding the case of bread that became stuck in an oven (hidbik pas b'tanur) and whether one may remove it before the baking is complete. Rabbi Zweig introduces a major machlokes (dispute) among the Acharonim (later authorities) about the fundamental nature of Shabbos prohibitions. The Gemara (גמרא) states that if bread gets stuck in an oven, one may remove it before it finishes baking, suggesting that incomplete melachos don't constitute violations. However, this creates difficulties with other melachos like zoreiah (planting) and kotzer (harvesting), where the Rishonim hold one is liable immediately upon performing the action, even if the result isn't complete. The Rashash holds that all melachos requiring duration are only complete when finished - if you interrupt the process, you avoid the prohibition entirely. Other Acharonim disagree, creating various distinctions: some say it depends whether the melacha requires subsequent human action versus natural processes (b'yedei shamayim), while others distinguish between melachos affecting the ground (avodas karka) versus food preparation. Rabbi Zweig critiques these forced distinctions as lacking proper textual foundation. The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s ruling that one may remove bread b'shogeg (accidentally) rather than b'meizid (intentionally) as the Gemara states creates additional complexity. Rabbi Zweig resolves these difficulties by proposing a fundamental distinction within Shabbos law itself. He argues there are two separate halachos: (1) the prohibition 'lo sa'aseh kol melacha' - not to perform actions that will result in melacha, which is violated immediately upon performing the action, and (2) the concept of 'chilul Shabbos' - actual desecration of Shabbos, which only occurs when the melacha is completed. According to this approach, when you put bread in an oven on Shabbos, you immediately violate the prohibition against performing melacha-causing actions. However, you only become a 'mechalel Shabbos' (Shabbos desecrator) when the bread actually finishes baking. Taking the bread out saves you from chilul Shabbos but doesn't retroactively eliminate the initial prohibition. This explains Tosafos (תוספות)' statement that 'the ma'aseh shel issur k'var nasa' - the forbidden act has already been performed. The practical ramifications are enormous: according to the Rashash, one could begin cooking five minutes before Shabbos ends since it won't finish on Shabbos, but according to Rabbi Zweig's reading, one would still be liable. This distinction also explains various nafka minas (practical differences) regarding the status of a mechalel Shabbos versus one who merely violated a Shabbos prohibition, and resolves the apparent contradiction in the Yerushalmi about actions performed on Shabbos that complete after Shabbos.
Shabbos 4a
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.
