A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
If someone eats maror during karpas, must they eat it again later to fulfill the maror obligation? Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) disagree on when mitzvos tzrichos kavana applies: Rashi holds that specific intent becomes necessary only when the same action could fulfill multiple obligations simultaneously, while Tosafos focuses on the timing and primacy of the main mitzvah (מצוה).
This shiur provides an intensive analysis of Pesachim 114b, focusing on the principle of mitzvos tzrichos kavana (commandments require intent) in the context of the Pesach (פסח) seder. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where someone eats maror (bitter herbs) during karpas (the vegetable eaten early in the seder) - must they eat maror again later to fulfill their obligation? Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) offer dramatically different interpretations of the Gemara's reasoning. According to Rashi's reading, the Gemara states that since the person made a borei pri ha'adama blessing (and not an al achilas maror blessing), we can be certain they weren't thinking about maror. Tosafos objects that this reading makes the Gemara's language of 'dilma' (perhaps) inappropriate - if we know for certain based on the blessing, why does the Gemara use tentative language?
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.
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.
