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.
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.
