A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When using the same maror for both karpas and the mitzvah (מצוה) of maror, when should one make the blessing 'al achilas maror'? The shiur argues that Rav Chisda's requirement to make this blessing at karpas time reflects his position that mitzvos ein tzrichos kavana - without intention, eating maror for karpas would still fulfill the mitzvah, requiring the blessing beforehand.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Pesachim 114b, focusing on the fundamental question of mitzvos tzrichos kavana - whether mitzvos require specific intention for their fulfillment. The discussion centers on a practical case: when someone only has maror available and must use it both for karpas (the vegetable eaten early in the Seder) and for the actual mitzvah (מצוה) of maror (eaten after matzah). The Gemara (גמרא) presents a dispute between Reish Lakish and the response of the Gemara. According to the Rashbam's explanation, Reish Lakish argues that if mitzvos do not require specific intention (mitzvos ein tzrichos kavana), then eating maror for karpas would automatically fulfill the mitzvah of maror, even though it's eaten before the proper time (before matzah). This would be problematic because it would mean fulfilling the mitzvah of maror sh'lo b'zman (not at its proper time), which contradicts the pasuk requiring maror to be eaten after matzah.
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 114b
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.
