A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why must one eat chazeret twice when using it for both karpas and maror? The shiur analyzes how this Gemara (גמרא) in Pesachim 114b becomes a key proof for mitzvos tzrichos kavanah, since wrong intention during the first eating invalidates it for maror. The analysis reveals how this interacts with the competing obligation of heker l'tinokos in sippur yetzias Mitzrayim.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Pesachim 114b, examining the fundamental question of whether mitzvos tzrichos kavanah (mitzvos require proper intention). The discussion centers on a Mishna that addresses the case where one lacks karpas and must use chazeret for both the karpas dipping and later for maror. The Gemara (גמרא) asks why one must eat chazeret twice if mitzvos don't require kavanah - shouldn't the first eating suffice for both obligations? The Talmud (תלמוד) presents two possible approaches. If mitzvos ein tzrichos kavanah (don't require intention), then eating chazeret once should fulfill both karpas and maror, with a second eating only needed as heker l'tinokos (to create curiosity for the children). However, if mitzvos tzrichos kavanah, then the first eating doesn't count for maror since one had intention for karpas, necessitating a second eating specifically for maror.
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.
