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.
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.
