A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why must bittul chametz be performed before Pesach (פסח) rather than when chametz is actually found during the holiday? The shiur develops Rashi (רש"י)'s understanding that bittul requires ownership to transform chametz into worthless matter. Once Pesach begins, the Torah (תורה) renders chametz 'not yours,' making nullification impossible since you cannot nullify what you don't own.
This shiur provides a comprehensive analysis of Pesachim 6b, focusing on the fundamental obligation of bittul chametz - nullifying chametz before Pesach (פסח). The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that beyond the obligation to search for chametz (bedikah), one must also nullify any remaining chametz through bittul. Rabbi Zweig examines the core dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot regarding the nature of bittul. According to Rashi, the Torah (תורה)'s use of 'tashbisu' (remove) rather than 'teva'aru' (burn) indicates that nullification through bittul is also a form of fulfilling tashbisu - either by destroying the physical object or by nullifying its status as chametz. Tosafot, however, argues that bittul functions like hefker (abandonment) and is fundamentally different from the obligation of tashbisu. The shiur delves into Rashi's complex explanation of bittul, which appears to have two components: first, a mental nullification (batel balev) where one distances oneself from the chametz to avoid violating bal yera'eh and bal yimatzei, and second, a verbal declaration that transforms the chametz into something worthless like dirt, thereby fulfilling the positive commandment of tashbisu. This dual nature explains why Rashi requires both mental and verbal elements for proper bittul.
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 6b
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.
