A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why are two people who jointly perform a melacha both exempt rather than both liable? The shiur resolves contradictions in Tosafos (תוספות) by distinguishing between the gavra and cheftza perspectives on melacha performance. This chakira explains why partial acts like akira alone have melacha status yet joint performance creates exemption.
This shiur provides a comprehensive examination of Tosafos (תוספות)'s commentary on Gemara (גמרא) Shabbos (שבת) regarding 'shnayim she'asu' - cases where two people together perform a single melacha. Rabbi Zweig begins by addressing an apparent contradiction within Tosafos's own explanations, where Tosafos seems to give different interpretations of similar cases involving akira (lifting) and hanacha (placing down) in different contexts. The shiur explores two fundamental approaches to understanding why the Torah (תורה) needed a special verse to exempt two people who jointly perform a melacha. The first approach suggests we might have viewed one person as doing the complete melacha while the other merely assists. The second approach proposes we might have held someone liable simply because a melacha was accomplished, regardless of who performed which parts. Rabbi Zweig analyzes the Maharsha's difficulty with the Gemara's placement of this discussion, questioning why it appears in the middle of explaining the Mishna rather than in its more logical location. The shiur examines various Acharonim's responses to this question, including the Maharsha's own answer and critiques thereof. Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation receives extensive treatment, particularly his view that we learn from the principle of 'ikar chayuv chatas' that even partial performance of a melacha (like akira alone) has the status of a melacha. This leads to a fundamental discussion about whether melachos should be understood from the perspective of the person performing them (the gavra) or from the perspective of the object being acted upon (the cheftza). The shiur concludes by explaining how this Gemara establishes that 'zeh oker ze'miniach' (one lifting, another placing) has the status of a complete melacha, which then generates the question of why both parties are exempt rather than liable.
Masechta Shabbos
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.
