No community start suggestion yet.
Must one interrupt a meal begun before Shabbos (שבת) when Shabbos arrives? The shiur develops the machlokes between Rav Yehuda (who requires interruption) and Rav Yosi through competing understandings of kavod Shabbos versus seudah Shabbos - whether the Shabbos meal requires special ta'avah or simply fulfilling the basic obligation.
This complex shiur analyzes the challenging sugya on Pesachim 114b dealing with the halachos of eating before Shabbos (שבת) and the requirement to stop (mafsik) or continue eating when Shabbos begins. Rabbi Zweig works through multiple difficult questions (kashas) from the Rishonim, particularly focusing on the fundamental dispute between Rav Yehuda and Rav Yosi. The core issue centers on whether one must interrupt a meal begun before Shabbos when Shabbos arrives. Rav Yehuda holds one must be mafsik (interrupt the meal), remove the food, make kiddush, and begin anew as seudah Shabbos. Rav Yosi maintains ein mafsik (no interruption needed) - one may continue the meal and fulfill the Shabbos meal obligation through this continued eating.
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!
Pesachim 114b
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.
