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.
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.
