A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can one cover chametz with a vessel on Yom Tov when the chametz cannot be moved due to muktzeh? Tosafot offers two solutions: covering designates the chametz for destruction (removing concern about eating it), or it serves to protect oneself rather than the forbidden chametz. This dispute with Rashi (רש"י) affects when bitul is required and how muktzeh interacts with bal yeraeh u'bal yimatzei.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Gemara (גמרא) Pesachim 6a, focusing on the complex issue of covering chametz with a vessel (kofal alav kli) on Yom Tov. The discussion begins with examining Rashi (רש"י)'s position that if chametz is not in one's house, there is no violation of bal yeraeh u'bal yimatzei (the prohibition against seeing and finding chametz on Pesach (פסח)). However, the practical question arises: why can't one simply remove such chametz? The answer lies in the laws of muktzeh - objects forbidden to be moved on Shabbos (שבת) and Yom Tov. The Gemara presents a fundamental dispute between Rashi and Tosafot regarding the permissibility of covering chametz with a vessel. According to Rashi, this action is problematic because it violates the principle of ein kli nittal ela l'tzorech (a vessel may not be moved except for its intended use). When one covers muktzeh chametz, the vessel itself becomes muktzeh, as it is being used to serve something forbidden to handle.
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.
