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 twice in consecutive halachos, and why are women obligated despite potential exemption from sippur yetzias Mitzrayim? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: one mitzvah (מצוה) requires ceremonial recounting 'al hakos' (over wine) while a separate mitzvah requires actually drinking wine to celebrate personal freedom. This dual structure resolves multiple puzzles in Rishonim and explains why charity provides wine only for the poor man himself.
This shiur presents a fundamental analysis of the mitzvah (מצוה) of arba kosos (four cups) on Pesach (פסח) night, based on Gemara (גמרא) Pesachim 99b. Rabbi Zweig develops the thesis that there are actually two distinct mitzvos at play, building on insights from the Brisker Rav and other Rishonim. The first mitzvah (corresponding to Rambam (רמב"ם)'s Halacha (הלכה) Alef) is the obligation to recount and commemorate the story of the Exodus - a historical recounting that creates an objective commemoration of the miracles. This requires the seder to be conducted 'al hakos' (over a cup), making it a ceremonial act rather than mere personal remembrance. This is similar to kiddush on Shabbos (שבת), where we sanctify the day through words over wine.
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.
