I. The Primary Inquiry: The Obligation of the Mumar
The lecture commences with a fundamental question regarding the laws of Passover: Does a person who actively transgresses the prohibition of eating Chametz retain the obligation to eat Matzah? This query arises from the hekish (halachic juxtaposition) in the Torah equating the prohibition of Chametz with the positive commandment of Matzah. The concern is that one who violates the former may be halachically excluded from the latter.
II. The Talmudic Foundation and Tosafos’ Resolution
The discussion analyzes the Gemara in Pesachim regarding a Mumar (an apostate or consistent transgressor) regarding the Korban Pesach. The Gemara implies that such an individual acts paradoxically—he cannot eat the sacrifice, yet he eats Matzah and Maror.
The Ri (cited in Tosafos) addresses a difficulty: Why is a specific verse needed to teach that a Mumer is obligated in Matzah? If he is Jewish, the obligation should be intrinsic. The Ri explains that without the verse, one might assume the hekish exempts the Mumer from Matzah because he not able to eat the Pesach. Thus, the verse serves to reinstate his obligation despite his transgression.
Now, if we say one who eats chometz seemingly should not obligated in Matza because of the Hekeish, why don't we say that the pasuk refers to a mumer who eats chometz and we need to pasuk to teach us that nevertheless he must still eat Matza?? Since Tosafos didn't say that, it must be that if he is a Mumer to eat Chometz, he is still obligated to eat Matza [despite the Hekeish] and we don't need a a special derivation from the pasuk to tell us that!
III. The Comparative Analysis: Safrus (Scribes) and Tefillin
The shiur then pivots to test this legal theory against other areas of Halacha, specifically the writing of Sifrei Torah and Tefillin.
The Rule of the Scribe: Validity in writing is contingent on the scribe being essentially obligated in the act of "binding" (wearing) Tefillin.
The Conflict: If a person is a Mumer regarding Tefillin (he does not wear them), he is invalid to write them. This creates a tension with the earlier conclusion about Matzah, where the transgressor remained obligated. [This will be resolved later in the Teshuva].
IV. The Core Distinction: L’teavon vs. L’hachis
The lecture delves into the motivation of the transgressor, distinguishing between a Mumer l’hachis (one who transgresses out of spite) and a Mumer l’teavon (one who transgresses out of appetite or laziness).
A critical contradiction emerges between the laws of Shechita (ritual slaughter) and Safrus (writing):
Shechita: A person who eats non-kosher meat (neveilos) due to appetite (l’teavon) is generally considered a valid slaughterer (Bar Zevicha). His laziness or lack of self-control regarding food does not invalidate his ritual status for slaughter.
Tefillin: Conversely, regarding a scribe who does not wear Tefillin due to laziness (l’teavon—he is too busy or apathetic), the Beis Yaakov (based on Tosafos in Avodah Zarah) rules that he is invalid to write. Even though his motivation is merely laziness, he is not considered a "binder," and thus cannot be a "writer."
V. Conclusion and Looking Ahead
The lecture concludes with a challenging discrepancy that serves as the basis for the next session. We have established a double standard for the Mumar l’teavon:
Why is the "lazy" transgressor valid to perform Shechita?
Why is the "lazy" transgressor invalid to write Tefillin?
The shiur ends with this Tzaruch Iyun (matter requiring further study), setting the stage to resolve why the mechanism of disqualification differs between ritual slaughter and the writing of holy texts.
