A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why did Pharaoh sentence the Sar Hamashkim and Sar Ha'ofeh for offenses not committed at the royal table? The shiur analyzes the Midrash's two explanations—a fly and a stone, or an attempted poisoning to marry the king's daughter—and develops the principle that Pharaoh held himself not merely as king but as a deity. This makes even private offenses against his person a capital crime, creating a scandal potent enough to shift attention from Yosef.
This shiur examines the Gemara (גמרא) in Pesachim (page 3, daf 28b) discussing the offenses of the Sar Hamashkim (cupbearer) and the Sar Ha'ofeh (baker) that led to their imprisonment alongside Yosef. The Gemara presents two interpretations: Rabbanan says a fly was found in the cupbearer's drink and a stone in the baker's bread, while Rav Yosef says both attempted to seduce or marry Pharaoh's daughter. Rabbi Zweig opens by questioning both interpretations. According to the first view, why did the baker die and the cupbearer live? Rashi (רש"י) explains that a fly could enter on its own, but a stone indicates negligence in cleaning or sifting. However, according to the second view that both sought the king's daughter, why the different verdicts? Furthermore, the Matnos Kehunah notes that the drink was specifically a post-bathhouse beverage (pailu), not the royal wine served at state functions—why this unusual detail?
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 28b
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.
