A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How can the Gemara (גמרא) require nullifying chametz found during bedika when the Rambam (רמב"ם) rules that chametz yidua cannot be nullified? The Rambam distinguishes between fulfilling tashbisu and avoiding bal yeira/bal yimatzei - bitul prevents the prohibitions even without fulfilling the destruction obligation. This reframes the entire sugya as preventing violations rather than fulfilling the mitzvah (מצוה) of destroying chametz.
This advanced shiur delves deeply into the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s intricate understanding of bitul chametz and its relationship to the biblical prohibitions of bal yeira and bal yimatzei. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the Rambam's position in Hilchos Chametz uMatzah that chametz yidua (known chametz) cannot be nullified and must be destroyed, while chametz ein yidua (unknown chametz) can be nullified. This creates a fundamental difficulty with the Gemara (גמרא)'s statement that when one finds chametz during bedika, one should nullify it - how can one nullify chametz yidua? The shiur explores the Kesef Mishneh's interpretation and the broader question of when the mitzvah (מצוה) of tashbisu (destroying chametz) applies. Rabbi Zweig suggests that according to the Rambam, there may be a distinction between fulfilling tashbisu and avoiding the prohibitions of bal yeira/bal yimatzei - bitul might not fulfill tashbisu on chametz yidua but could still prevent violation of bal yeira/bal yimatzei.
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-7a
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.
