No community start suggestion yet.
When should the Seder table be brought out - before karpas or after it? Rashbam and Rashi (רש"י) hold only vegetables come for karpas, while the full table arrives later for the main Seder. This dispute hinges on whether karpas requires haseiva, since proper table service connects to reclining requirements.
This shiur analyzes a complex Mishna in Pesachim 114b regarding the proper order of bringing food items to the Seder table. The Mishna states 'heviu lefanav' (they brought before him) regarding various Seder foods, but the commentators disagree about the precise timing and requirements. The Rashbam holds that for karpas, only vegetables are brought - not the full table with all Seder foods. According to his view, the charoset is not present during karpas because the table hasn't been brought yet. This solves the problem of why the Mishna mentions bringing charoset later if it was already there. Rashi (רש"י) agrees with this approach, stating that vegetables are brought for karpas, and only afterward is the full table brought for yachatz and the main Seder.
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 114b
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.
