A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) rule that matzah and maror must be eaten both separately and together, omitting the Pesach (פסח) sacrifice from the combined eating? The shiur uses variant textual readings to show the Rambam follows the Chachamim, not Hillel — only matzah and maror together, based on the principle that mitzvos can nullify each other in majority situations.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Pesachim 115a, examining the fundamental dispute between Hillel and the Chachamim regarding how to consume the Pesach (פסח), matzah, and maror. The discussion begins with the Raavad's questions on the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s ruling, particularly why the Rambam only mentions matzah and maror together without including the Pesach sacrifice, and why the order seems imprecise. The shiur explores the Lechem Mishna's interpretation that the Rambam requires both separate consumption and combined consumption, with different blessings depending on the order. However, a significant question arises: once one has already fulfilled the mitzvah (מצוה) of matzah and maror separately, what is the point of eating them together afterward? This leads to a fundamental analysis of the principle of mitzvos mevatlim zu es zu (mitzvos canceling each other out). The shiur suggests a novel interpretation based on different textual readings (girsaos) of the Gemara (גמרא), particularly the Rashbam's version. According to this reading, there are two different biblical verses being cited: 'al matzos u'marorim yochelu' (regarding all three items together) and 'matzos al marorim yochelu' (regarding only matzah and maror together). This leads to the conclusion that Hillel held one must eat all three items (Pesach, matzah, and maror) together, while the Chachamim held that only matzah and maror need to be eaten together. The shiur proposes that the Rambam is actually following the Chachamim's position, not Hillel's, which explains why he only mentions matzah and maror. The discussion then delves into the principle of bitul (nullification), suggesting that when dealing with three mitzvos, even a 2-to-1 ratio doesn't create nullification according to Hillel, while the Chachamim hold that mitzvos can be mevatel (cancel) each other when there's a majority. This creates an interesting parallel to the Gemara in Zevachim regarding forbidden foods. The shiur concludes by addressing how this applies in our time (bizman hazeh), when we can only eat matzah (d'rabbanan) and maror (which has no biblical obligation), explaining why they must be eaten separately first and then together as a remembrance (zecher) of the Temple practices.
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.
