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.
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.
