A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does finding chametz on Pesach (פסח) automatically violate bal yera'eh? The Rambam (רמב"ם) holds that proper bedika and bitul render any discovered chametz 'not yours' - the Torah (תורה) only restores possession when one failed their obligations. This chiddush explains why bitul works for unknown chametz but not for known chametz one neglected to destroy.
This shiur presents a revolutionary understanding of the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s approach to bitul chametz (nullification of leavened bread) that fundamentally differs from other Rishonim. The central focus is on resolving the apparent contradiction in the Kesef Mishneh's version of the Rambam regarding when bitul works versus when one must physically destroy chametz. The Rambam distinguishes between chametz yadu'a (known chametz) and chametz ein yadu'a (unknown chametz), ruling that known chametz requires destruction while unknown chametz can be nullified. A major chiddush emerges from the Rambam's reading of the Gemara (גמרא)'s case of 'shema yimtza galus ki yafa' (perhaps he will find a loaf of bread). Unlike Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot who understand this as a case where one is automatically over bal yera'eh upon finding chametz, the Rambam holds that if one properly performed bedikat chametz and bitul, finding chametz on Pesach (פסח) does not create a violation of bal yera'eh bal yimatzei. The key insight is that chametz found after proper bedika is considered 'eino shelcha' (not yours) - the Torah (תורה) only puts chametz back into one's possession to create liability when they failed to fulfill their obligations.
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
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.
