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.
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.
