A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) present two separate discussions of bitul chametz in consecutive halachos? The shiur reveals that halacha (הלכה) 7 addresses bitul for tashbisu (removal obligations) while halacha 8 addresses bitul for bal yeiraeh ubal yimatzei (possession prohibitions). This distinction explains the Gemara (גמרא)'s debate about timing bitul with bedikah versus biur.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of Pesachim 6b and the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s laws of bitul chametz, revealing a fundamental distinction between two types of bitul. Rabbi Zweig examines the Rambam in Hilchos Chametz UMatzah, specifically halachos 7 and 8, demonstrating how they address different aspects of chametz removal. In halacha (הלכה) 7, the Rambam discusses bitul for chametz that remains in one's reshus but is unseen after bedikah - this addresses the mitzvah (מצוה) of tashbisu (removal). The person performed proper bedikah and isn't over bal yeiraeh ubal yimatzei, but there may still be chametz in places not required to be checked. This bitul serves to fulfill tashbisu by effectively removing the chametz from one's reshus. In halacha 8, the Rambam addresses a different case - chametz that one knew about but forgot during the time of biur. Here the person is over bal yeiraeh ubal yimatzei because they had knowledge of the chametz. This bitul attempts to remove the personal connection (lo yeiraeh lecha). The shiur explores how the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of whether bitul should be done at night (with bedikah) or during the day (with biur) reflects these two different purposes. When the Gemara suggests doing bitul during biur, it's addressing tashbisu concerns, where isur hana'ah prevents effective bitul. When discussing bitul at night with bedikah, it addresses bal yeiraeh concerns, where the Torah (תורה)'s decree of 'asah Torah k'ilu bereshuso' prevents bitul from working. Rabbi Zweig analyzes the language of Perek 2, Halacha 2, showing how complete bitul must address both aspects: 'shibatel chametz belibo' (personal separation for bal yeiraeh) and ensuring chametz is considered as if not in one's reshus (for tashbisu). The shiur addresses several difficulties, including why the Gemara asks about doing bitul upon finding chametz when one would already be over bal yeiraeh, and explores the implications of this dual system for practical halacha.
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.
