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.
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.
