A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) describe arba kosos with seemingly contradictory requirements about cup size, individual vs. family obligations, and charity provisions? The shiur identifies two distinct Torah (תורה) laws within arba kosos: sipur yetziat Mitzrayim (storytelling over wine for pirsumei nisa) and personal celebration as free people (actual drinking derech cheirut). Each law has different halachic parameters that resolve the apparent contradictions.
Rabbi Zweig presents a sophisticated analysis of the halachot of arba kosos (four cups of wine) on Pesach (פסח) night, based on Masechta Pesachim daf 108b. He begins by noting that both the Gemara (גמרא), Rashi (רש"י), and Tosafot learn that arba kosos is based on the four expressions of redemption (arba lashonot shel geulah): hotzeiti, hitzalti, ga'alti, v'lakachti. However, Rashi on daf 108a presents a different source - the three mentions of 'kos Pharaoh' in Pharaoh's cupbearer's dream plus the kos of birkat hamazon, creating four cups total. The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s formulation reveals two distinct halachot within arba kosos. First is the mitzvat aseh d'oraita to tell the story of the Exodus (sipur yetziat Mitzrayim), which Chachamim enacted should be performed over cups of wine (al hakos) for pirsumei nisa (publicizing the miracle). Second is the separate Torah (תורה) obligation of 'v'zacharta ki eved hayita' - remembering and celebrating as if one is personally leaving Egypt tonight, which requires actual drinking (chiyuv sh'tiya) in a manner befitting free people (derech cheirut).
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 108b
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.
