A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why did Hillel avoid eating matzah and maror together, citing the principle that mitzvos nullify each other? The shiur analyzes competing views in Pesachim 115a: Rashbam focuses on taste requirements, while Tosafos (תוספות) emphasizes the physical act of simultaneous chewing. This chakira illuminates why today's korech doesn't create the same problem - both components are now zecher l'mikdash rather than Torah (תורה) obligations.
This shiur provides a deep analysis of Pesachim 115a, focusing on the principle of 'mitzvos mevatalos zu es zu' - whether and when one mitzvah (מצוה) can nullify another when performed simultaneously. The central case examined is eating matzah and maror together during Pesach (פסח). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a fundamental dispute: Hillel held that one should not eat matzah and maror together because of the principle that mitzvos nullify each other. The concern is that when eaten together, neither mitzvah is properly fulfilled. Rabbi Zweig examines the Rashbam's interpretation that this is connected to the concept of 'ta'am' (taste) - specifically that while one doesn't need to taste the matzah to fulfill the mitzvah, there are requirements regarding how the mitzvah can be performed.
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.
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.
