A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why would someone be reluctant to burn chametz found on Pesach (פסח) but willing to nullify it beforehand? Rashi (רש"י) argues that finding chametz creates a biblical obligation to burn it, making the person psychologically reluctant in a way that undermines sincere pre-Pesach bitul. Tosafos (תוספות) counters that reluctance to give up chametz should affect both burning and nullification equally.
This shiur provides a detailed analysis of Pesachim 6b, focusing on a fundamental disagreement between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) regarding bitul chametz and the obligations when chametz is found during Pesach (פסח). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses the case of someone who might find chametz on Pesach after having performed bedikah (search for chametz) and questions whether he would be willing to nullify it. Rashi's position is that the person would be 'kashe lo l'saref' (find it difficult to burn) the chametz because once found on Pesach, there is an obligation to physically destroy it, not merely nullify it. This creates a psychological reluctance that undermines the sincerity of any pre-Pesach bitul. Tosafos challenges this, arguing that if the person is already reluctant to burn chametz, why would he be more willing to nullify it, since both actions involve giving up the chametz.
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.
