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.
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.
