A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why do we say "al bi'ur chametz" rather than "l'vaer chametz" when searching for chametz before Pesach (פסח)? The shiur develops the machlokes between Rav Papi and Rav Papa as reflecting whether blessings focus on the ma'aseh mitzvah (מצוה) or on accomplishing the goal. This Talmudic principle explains the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s consistent rulings across chametz, milah, and shechitah.
This advanced Talmudic analysis explores a fundamental dispute in Pesachim 7a-b between Rav Papi and Rav Papa concerning the proper formulation of blessings on mitzvos. The core issue revolves around whether one should say "l'vaer chametz" (to remove chametz) or "al bi'ur chametz" (on the removal of chametz) when performing the pre-Pesach (פסח) search for chametz. Rabbi Zweig presents a novel interpretation that differs significantly from traditional commentaries like Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot. The shiur establishes that this dispute reflects a deeper philosophical question about the nature of blessings on mitzvos. Rav Papi holds that blessings should focus on the ma'aseh mitzvah (מצוה) (the action of the mitzvah) using the language "l'" (to do), while Rav Papa maintains that blessings should focus on the accomplishment or end goal using "al" (on/regarding). This distinction becomes crucial when analyzing various mitzvos where the obligation may not be on the specific action but rather on achieving a particular result.
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 7a-b
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.
