A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does one Amora speak of "eating" the three Shabbos (שבת) meals while another speaks of "mekayem" (establishing) them? The shiur distinguishes tasting the evolving relationship with Hashem (ה׳) through Friday night, Shabbos morning, and Mincha from giving kavod to Shabbos by setting a dignified, festive table that certifies the day's transformative power.
Rabbi Zweig examines two Amoraic statements regarding reward for the three Shabbos (שבת) meals. One Amora uses the language of "ochel shalosh seudos" (eating three meals), while another uses "mekayem gimmel seudos" (establishing/certifying three meals). The shiur asks: Why should eating three meals warrant special reward, and what distinguishes these two formulations? The Gemara (גמרא) on daf 117b in Shabbos learns the obligation of three meals from the threefold repetition of "hayom" (today) in the verses about the manna. Rabbi Zweig notes a fundamental question: if we're learning about eating meals, why does the word "day" appear three times rather than the word "eat"? He suggests this teaches that one "eats the day itself" - the Shabbos infuses taste into the food, and through eating, one tastes the different aspects of Shabbos.
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!
Shabbos 117b
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.
