A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why did Hillel eat matzah and maror together when the rabbinic maror seems to nullify the taste of deoraisa matzah? The shiur develops that Hillel held mitzvos ein mevatalot zu et zu - mitzvos don't nullify each other but create a combined taste experience the Torah (תורה) specifically desired. This reframes korech as achieving both individual mitzvah (מצוה) fulfillment plus an additional Torah-mandated combined experience.
This shiur begins with a hazara (review) of the din hasava according to the Rama, establishing that hasava is a din in seuda (requirement in the meal context) rather than an integral part of each specific mitzvah (מצוה). The Rama holds that one needs a proper seuda consisting of arba kosos of wine and a kezayis of matzah - not necessarily the first kezayis from the mitzvah itself. This differs from the Chayei Adam's interpretation that hasava must accompany the actual mitzvah performance. The discussion explores why certain Rishonim (Rash, Mordechai, Tosafos (תוספות) Rabbeinu Peretz, possibly Ramban (רמב"ן)) require going back to repeat the mitzvah if hasava wasn't performed, raising fundamental questions about how Chachamim can define deoraisa obligations and why some people are exempt from hasava entirely. The main focus then shifts to Pesachim 115a and Hillel's statement that one should not eat matzah and maror together because the mitzvah derabanan of maror is mevatal (nullifies) the taste of matzah deoraisa, preventing proper fulfillment of the matzah obligation. This raises several difficulties: why taste should matter when one can fulfill matzah by swallowing, why people without taste buds can still be obligated, and most critically, why the rabbinic status of maror creates this problem when both being mitzvos should make it acceptable.
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 115a
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.
