A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) seem to contradict himself about when hasaybah is required during the Seder? The shiur reveals that the Rambam presents two distinct halachot: a mitzvah (מצוה) of derech cheirus requiring proper furniture for the entire meal, and an issur against eating matzah or drinking the four cups without any reclining gesture. This dual structure explains the Rambam's changed order and resolves his seemingly contradictory language.
This shiur analyzes the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s seemingly difficult presentation of the laws of hasaybah (reclining) on Pesach (פסח) night, found in Hilchos Chametz U'Matzah 7-8. Rabbi Zweig begins by noting that the Rambam changes the order of the Mishna and appears to contradict himself regarding whether hasaybah is required for the entire meal or only for specific items. The analysis reveals that the Rambam is actually presenting two distinct halachot of hasaybah. The first is a mitzvah (מצוה) of derech cheirus (manner of freedom) that requires eating the entire Seder meal with proper furniture - a couch and table, or as the Rambam describes it, 'k'derech hamelachim' (in the manner of kings). This mitzvah stems from the obligation of sippur yetziat Mitzrayim, specifically the requirement to reenact leaving Egypt as if it's happening now. One must demonstrate being a ben chorin (free person) through one's physical setup and demeanor.
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 99b
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.
