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.
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.
