No community start suggestion yet.
Can picking up a floating nut constitute proper akirah if it was never 'placed' on the ground to begin with? Rashi (רש"י) holds that floating objects lack proper hanachah, so removing them cannot create liability. The Rambam (רמב"ם) distinguishes between regular carrying (requiring ground contact) and throwing cases (where flight itself validates the akirah).
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Gemara (גמרא) Shabbos (שבת) 5b, focusing on the complex halachos of hotza'ah (carrying) on Shabbos when dealing with objects that are not directly resting on the ground. The central case discussed is an egoz (nut) in a vessel floating on water - whether removing it constitutes a proper akirah (picking up) and hanachah (placing down) required for liability on Shabbos. The Gemara presents the principle that 'mayim agav mayim hanei nachsi' (water carried along with water is considered placed), but 'egoz agav mayim lo hanei nachsi' (a nut floating on water is not considered properly placed). This leads to a fundamental question: if the nut was never properly 'placed' to begin with, can there be a valid akirah when one picks it up?
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!
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 halacha forbid entering dangerous places if everything happens by Divine decree? The shiur examines the debate between Rashi and Tosfos on traveling at night, developing a fundamental distinction: Rashi holds one must avoid even deserved punishments that Hashem delays through mercy, while Tosfos holds the prohibition addresses self-inflicted harm through free will. This framework reveals how people rationalize self-destructive behavior as "hashgacha."
Why does the Gemara praise hospitality to scholars as a unique mitzvah rather than ordinary hachnasas orchim? The shiur distinguishes two mitzvahs: hachnasas orchim (providing for those in need) and connecting to talmidei chachamim (cleaving to God through scholars). Yisro's meal for the Jewish leaders wasn't charity—it was his way of bonding with those transformed by Torah, teaching that learning must fundamentally change who we are.
Shabbos 5b
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!
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.
