A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why can't bedika alone suffice for chametz removal if we only need to eliminate a kezayis? The Rosh holds that even crumbs smaller than a kezayis carry biblical prohibition (chatzi shiur), making complete physical removal impossible. Therefore bitul becomes essential - it fulfills tashbisu by rendering remaining crumbs hefker.
This shiur presents a detailed analysis of Pesachim 6b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of perurin (crumbs) and their halachic status. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the Sha'agas Aryeh's approach to chatzi shiur (partial measures), explaining that according to this view, chatzi shiur is only biblically forbidden when it can potentially combine (mitstaraf) with another portion to create a full measure. By ownership of chametz (ba'al yera'eh u'ba'al yimatzei), there is no joining since if one possesses half a kezayis and it's destroyed, then acquires another half kezayis, there's no violation - one needs the complete shiur simultaneously. Therefore, the Sha'agas Aryeh concludes there's no biblical prohibition on chatzi shiur for chametz ownership. The shiur then explores the Rosh's interpretation, which differs significantly. The Rosh maintains that perurin involves a din of chatzi shiur, meaning there is indeed a prohibition on less than a kezayis of chametz. This explains why one cannot rely on bedika (searching) alone - since it's impossible to find every tiny crumb, and even pachos mi'kezayis (less than an olive's volume) carries biblical prohibition, one must perform bitul (nullification).
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.
