A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why must someone who forgot to recline during the four cups repeat all four, rather than just two according to safek d'rabbanan l'kula? The shiur shows that the four cups with heseba constitute one unified mitzvah (מצוה). When someone is vadai mechuyav in a mitzvah but uncertain whether they fulfilled it, they must vadai fulfill it completely.
This shiur examines Pesachim 108a's discussion of whether the four cups at the Seder require heseba (reclining). The Gemara (גמרא) presents a dispute between those who say the first two cups need heseba versus those who say the last two, leading to the question of whether safek d'rabbanan l'kula should apply, allowing us to choose just two cups rather than requiring all four. The Ran initially suggests that since we don't know which two cups require heseba, we must do all four to avoid completely nullifying the rabbinic decree (mevatel takanas chachamim). The Mishna Melech develops this approach, distinguishing between cases where the uncertainty affects the individual's fulfillment of a mitzvah (מצוה) versus cases where it would undermine the entire rabbinic institution. He contrasts this with megillah reading, where doing one day is sufficient because it doesn't nullify the takanas chachamim - the decree for both types of cities remains intact. However, Rabbi Zweig challenges this interpretation by examining the practical halacha (הלכה). The Shulchan Aruch and Rama rule that if someone forgot to recline while drinking the cups, they must repeat all four cups with reclining. If the Mishna Melech's interpretation were correct, once the takanas chachamim is established (everyone else does four cups), an individual's mistake should only require two cups according to safek d'rabbanan l'kula. The fact that halacha requires repeating all four suggests a different understanding. Rabbi Zweig proposes that the Ran's actual position is that when someone is definitively obligated in a mitzvah (vadai mechuyav), they must ensure they fulfill it completely. The four cups with heseba constitute one unified mitzvah, not separate obligations. If someone is vadai mechuyav in heseba but uncertain whether they fulfilled it, they cannot rely on safek d'rabbanan l'kula because they are definitely obligated in the mitzvah. This differs from megillah, which involves two separate obligations (city dwellers versus walled city dwellers), where uncertainty about which category applies allows for safek d'rabbanan l'kula. The Ran's distinction is not about nullifying takanas chachamim but about the fundamental principle that when one is vadai mechuyav in a mitzvah, they must vadai fulfill it.
Pesachim 108a
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.
