A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) classify both types of zorek (throwing) — between domains and within reshus harabim — as subcategories of hotzaah rather than maavor arba amos? The shiur demonstrates that both involve makom changes, sharing hotzaah's essential spatial-transfer characteristic. This classification affects practical requirements like hanachah al da'as for Shabbos (שבת) liability.
This shiur examines a fundamental issue in the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s classification of Shabbos (שבת) melachos, specifically focusing on the nature of zorek (throwing). The discussion begins with analyzing why the Rambam brings different pesukim in Hilchos Shabbos versus Hilchos Shegagos regarding carrying on Shabbos. In Hilchos Shabbos, the Rambam cites the pasuk from Parshas Vayakhel, while in Hilchos Shegagos he brings the pasuk from Parshas Beshalach. Rabbi Zweig explains that this difference relates to whether the prohibition is explicit in the Torah (תורה) (psuto shel mikra) or requires rabbinic interpretation (geziras hakasuv). For Hilchos Shegagos, which deals with inadvertent violations where beis din must issue a ruling, the prohibition must be clearly stated in the Torah text itself. The pasuk regarding carrying requires geziras hakasuv to establish the prohibition, making it unsuitable for the context of shegagos where the prohibition must be self-evident. The shiur then transitions to examining the Rambam's position on zorek (throwing). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether zorek daled amos (throwing four cubits) in reshus harabim is a subcategory of hotzaah (carrying out) or maavor arba amos (transferring four cubits). The Rambam's formulation suggests that both types of zorek - throwing from one domain to another and throwing within reshus harabim - are subcategories of hotzaah rather than maavor. This represents a significant chidush, as it would seem logical that throwing within the same domain would be classified under maavor arba amos.
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 2a
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.
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 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.
Why does the Gemara pray to be 'among those who eat three meals on Shabbos' rather than simply to fulfill the mitzvah? The shiur develops that Shabbos eating means 'tasting the day itself' - mindful appreciation that connects us to Shabbos's spiritual quality. This requires discipline and community support, with three meals corresponding to distinct phases of Shabbos time.
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.
