A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When two people share a Shabbos (שבת) melacha - one lifting, another placing down - has either person fully violated? The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s unusual organization in Hilchos Shabbos reveals a chiddush that in many such cases, no complete melacha occurs at all. This reframes both the liability and the lifnei iver implications when enabling another's partial violation.
This advanced shiur provides a comprehensive analysis of Masechta Shabbos (שבת) 3a, focusing on the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s distinctive approach to understanding shared melachos (forbidden labors) on Shabbos and their relationship to the principle of lifnei iver. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the Rambam's seemingly unusual organization in Hilchos Shabbos, Perek 13, halachos 5-7, questioning why the Rambam deviates from the standard order of the Mishna and inserts seemingly irrelevant halachos in the middle of his discussion. The core issue centers on cases where two people share in performing a melacha - one doing the akira (lifting) and another doing the hanachah (placing down). The shiur explores the fundamental question of whether such cases constitute a complete violation by one person or a shared violation requiring both parties. Rabbi Zweig demonstrates how the Rambam reads the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of 'osav l'dechi ufchatus' (close to becoming liable for a sin offering) as referring not to traditional cases of shnayim she'asu (two people performing together), but rather to situations where one person performs most of a melacha while the other party remains largely passive. The analysis reveals that according to the Rambam's interpretation, in many cases discussed in the Mishna, there is actually no complete melacha performed at all - neither person completes all the required elements of hotza'ah (carrying out). This leads to a novel understanding of why certain cases are counted as d'oraita violations while others are not. The shiur concludes by examining how this interpretation affects our understanding of lifnei iver and the responsibility one bears when enabling another's potential violation, even in cases of shared action.
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.
