A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Rashi (רש"י) give contradictory statements about Shabbos (שבת) violation? The shiur develops a framework of two separate dinim: one affecting the chefetz of Shabbos (the day's sanctity) and another on the gavra (the person's obligation). This dual structure resolves the contradictions and illuminates practical applications in Tosefes Yom Tov and simchas Yom Tov.
This shiur examines a complex sugya in Pesachim 99b focusing on Rashi (רש"י)'s seemingly contradictory statements about Shabbos (שבת) violation. In one place, Rashi indicates that without the din of mechallel (desecrating), one must do everything together, while elsewhere he states that without this din, one is chayav even for one melacha, but doing four counts as only one violation. Rabbi Zweig proposes that there are two separate dinim at play. The first is a din affecting the cheftz of Shabbos - the sanctity of the day itself. This relates to the concept of mechallel, literally making Shabbos into a weekday by performing all thirty-nine melachos. The second is a din on the gavra (person) - the individual's obligation not to perform melacha on Shabbos. The maskana of the Gemara (גמרא) maintains both dinim, with the chiddush being that violating the cheftz of Shabbos occurs with just one melacha, not that we've changed from an isur cheftz to an isur gavra.
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!
Pesachim 99b
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.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
