A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How can one recite the bracha al achilas maror after already eating the maror earlier as karpas? The shiur develops a dual-structure approach: maror has both a basic eating obligation and a separate requirement to eat it after matzah. This framework explains how a bracha can cover a future mitzvah (מצוה) performance even when the initial eating lacked proper kavanah.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of a complex sugya in Pesachim 115a dealing with the proper timing of bracha recitation for the mitzvah (מצוה) of eating maror. The discussion centers on a dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Chistah regarding a scenario where one only has maror or karpas available for both the karpas dipping and the maror obligation. Rav Huna holds that one should first recite borei pri ha'adama when eating the karpas, and then later recite al achilas maror. Rav Chistah challenges this approach, questioning how one can make the bracha after already consuming the item. Rabbi Zweig examines Tosafos (תוספות)' interpretation, which suggests that Rav Chistah's position reflects the principle of mitzvos tzrichos kavanah - that mitzvos require proper intention. According to this reading, if one lacks proper kavanah during the first eating, they haven't fulfilled the mitzvah and thus shouldn't make the bracha afterward since it would appear inappropriate. Tosafos argues that even without fulfilling the mitzvah initially, the bracha made earlier can cover the later fulfillment because 'you ate some from it on the first table.' The shiur explores the mechanics of this principle, questioning how a bracha can be effective for a future mitzvah performance. Rabbi Zweig draws parallels to the case of shofar on Rosh Hashanah, where Rashi (רש"י) explains that shofar has dual aspects - the basic mitzvah of blowing and a separate prayer component. Similarly, maror may have two distinct obligations: the basic mitzvah of eating maror and a separate requirement that maror be eaten after matzah (based on the pasuk 'al matzos u'mrorim yochlu'). The analysis includes extensive discussion of the Rashbam's citation of different pesukim to establish these dual obligations, exploring whether the requirement is a din in matzah (that matzah must precede maror) or a din in maror (that maror must follow matzah). Rabbi Zweig argues that for the Gemara (גמרא)'s logic to work, it must be the latter - a separate kiyum of maror. The shiur also addresses practical halakhic implications, referencing the Shagas Aryeh's position on the Rosh regarding whether a kazayis is required for different aspects of the maror obligation. Throughout, Rabbi Zweig demonstrates how understanding the dual nature of certain mitzvos resolves apparent contradictions in the Gemara's reasoning.
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.
