A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why would a Jew ever need to remove chametz that literally belongs to a non-Jew? The shiur works through Rashi (רש"י)'s difficult position that granting permission for a non-Jew to enter your domain can create responsibility even for his possessions. The key insight emerges from the Gemara (גמרא)'s three-tier analysis: physical possession, acceptance of responsibility, and designation of space each create different levels of obligation.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Pesachim 6a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s teaching about chametz belonging to non-Jews (nochri) found in a Jew's possession or domain. The discussion centers on the braisa that states: "Tanu Rabbanan: A non-Jew who enters the courtyard of a Jew with his package in his hand - one is not obligated to remove it." Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation, which presents several difficulties. Rashi explains that "b'tzeidah ub'yadah" (with his package in his hand) means literally in the non-Jew's physical possession, and that one cannot force the non-Jew to leave. This raises the fundamental question: if the chametz is literally in the non-Jew's hand, why would there be any obligation for the Jew to remove it in the first place, since it's clearly not in the Jew's possession?
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 6a
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.
