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.
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.
