A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
If someone eats maror for karpas and then must eat it again for the mitzvah (מצוה) of maror, when should they make the bracha? The machlokes between Rav Huna and Rav Hisda reveals the fundamental dispute about mitzvos tzrichos kavanah - whether proper intention is required for mitzvah fulfillment.
This shiur provides a detailed analysis of Pesachim 114b, focusing on the fundamental dispute regarding mitzvos tzrichos kavanah (whether mitzvos require proper intention). The discussion centers on a case where one only has maror available for karpas - must they eat it again for the mitzvah (מצוה) of maror after matzah? Rabbi Zweig explains Reish Lakish's position according to the Rashbam: if someone eats maror for karpas before its proper time (which is after matzah, based on the pasuk 'al matzos umorim yochlu'), they would be fulfilling maror prematurely (kodem zman), which is problematic. Therefore, one must hold mitzvos tzrichos kavanah - the first eating counts for nothing since it was done l'sheim karpas, allowing the second eating to properly fulfill the mitzvah l'sheim maror 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.
