A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does matzah require heseibah while maror does not, and does this obligation apply today when reclining isn't normal? The shiur distinguishes between two separate dinim: heseibah as part of demonstrating freedom during sipur yetzias Mitzrayim, and heseibah as an intrinsic requirement for eating matzah itself. Even when contemporary derech cheirut doesn't require reclining, relaxed eating remains me'akev for the mitzvah (מצוה) of achilas matzah.
This shiur examines the Gemara (גמרא)'s ruling that matzah requires heseibah while maror does not, and addresses fundamental questions about the nature of this obligation. The analysis begins with the Gemara's discussion of whether a servant needs heseibah, which leads to the Rosh's proof that heseibah is me'akev (indispensable) based on the principle that if one is not careful about it, he doesn't fulfill his obligation properly. The shiur explores a significant machlokes between the Rambam (רמב"ם) and other Rishonim regarding whether heseibah is me'akev. While the Rosh and others clearly state that without heseibah one doesn't fulfill the mitzvah (מצוה), the Rambam's language is more ambiguous, potentially suggesting it's only recommended (meshubach) rather than required.
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 108a
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.
