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.
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.
