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.
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.
