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.
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.
