A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What does "hadein peah ve'hadein nami" accomplish — is it expanding the first peah, or creating a second one? The shiur develops the Kesef Mishneh's position that the Rambam (רמב"ם) distinguishes between the mitzvah (מצוה) of haniach peah (leaving uncut field) and hifrish peah (designating money for the poor). Only the latter operates through yad, creating two separate halos, which explains why the Gemara (גמרא)'s im timtzalomer applies to tzedakah but not peah.
Rabbi Zweig analyzes a fundamental question in the Kesef Mishneh's reading of the Rambam (רמב"ם) in Hilchos Matanos Aniyim regarding whether there is yad lepe'ah. The Kesef Mishneh holds that the Rambam is mestapik (uncertain) in the halacha (הלכה) of yesh yad lepe'ah and paskens safek lakula, while by tzedakah, the Gemara (גמרא) says im timtzalomer yesh yad letzedakah, making it a vadai. This creates a fundamental contradiction: if the Gemara resolves ein hekesh lema'achase regarding tzedakah, why would peah remain a safek when both involve the same question of whether they are hukash to karbonos beyond just baal toker? The shiur presents multiple kashas on this Kesef Mishneh. First, if the Gemara is poshet (resolves) ein hekesh lema'achase by tzedakah, it should apply to peah as well. Second, the Rambam includes in one halacha both the case of hadein ugi lavi peah ve'hadein nami and zu peah ve'zu. The Gemara says the case of zu nami is peah amalyesu (obviously valid) even without yad lepe'ah. How can the Rambam combine a vadai and a safek in the same halacha? Third, why does the Rambam pasken the case of zu nami at all when the Gemara calls it pshita?
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!
Nedarim (discussion of yad lepe'ah)
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.
