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.
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.
