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.
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.
