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.
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.
