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.
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.
