(a)Who was Ayvu?
(b)How could Rav be the son of both Rebbi Chiya's brother and his sister?
(c)Which two questions did Rebbi Chiya ask Rav when he came from Bavel, and what do we learn from Rav's reply?
(d)When Rebbi Chiya understood that his brother and sister were both no longer alive, he instructed his servant to remove his (Rebbi Chiya's) shoes, and to then carry his fresh clothes after him to the bath-house. Which three Halachos did he teach us?
(a)Ayvu was Rebbi Chiya's brother and Rav's father.
(b)He was the paternal brother of Rebbi Chiya, and his wife, the maternal sister. Consequently, they (Rav's parents) were not blood relatives.
(c)Rebbi Chiya asked Rav - whether Ayvu (his father) was still alive. When he replied that he should rather question him about his mother (Rebbi Chiya's sister), he asked him whether she was indeed alive, at which Rav replied that he should rather ask him about his father. From all this, Rebbi Chiya understood that both his siblings were no longer alive. We learn from Rav how careful one should be not to be the harbinger of bad news.
(d)Rebbi Chiya taught us 1. that a mourner is forbidden to wear shoes; 2. that old (bad) news (after thirty days) only requires one day of mourning; 3. that part of the day is considered like a whole day (at the end of the mourning period) In fact, even one hour is sufficient.
(a)What did people comment about the man who would constantly say 'Come, let's go to a judge!'?
(b)And what did they say about the man who would always sing the praises of the sea-shore. 'Even a bush by the sea-shore', he would say, 'is like a tall tree elsewhere!'?
(a)The people commented that the man who would constantly say 'Come, let's go to a judge!' - must have been from the tribe of Dan, about whom the Torah writes in Vayechi "Dan Yadin Amo, k'Achad Shivtei Yisrael".
(b)And they said that the man who would always sing the praises of the sea-shore - he must be from the tribe of Zevulun, about whom the Torah writes there "Zevulun l'Chof Yamim Yishkon".
(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Vayeira "Vayashkem Avraham ba'Boker"?
(b)Why does that present us with a Kashya on our Mishnah: 'Or l'Arba'ah-Asar Bodkin es he'Chametz'? Why would this not have been difficult had Or meant light?
(c)For which two reasons did Chazal institute Bedikas Chametz at night-time?
(d)What should one not therefore do once the time for Bedikas Chametz arrives?
(a)We learn from the Pasuk "Vayashkem Avraham ba'Boker" (written by the Akeidah) - that Avraham Avinu would get up early to perform Mitzvos. So we learn from him, the principle of 'Zerizin Makdimin l'Mitzvos'.
(b)Since 'Zerizin Makdimin l'Mitzvos' - only begins in the morning (as we see by Avraham), why did Chazal fix the Mitzvah of Bedikas Chametz as early as the night before? Had Or meant light, we might have learnt that 'Or l'Arba'ah-Asar' means from the sixth hour, just one hour before the time that it becomes Asur min ha'Torah, and there would have been no problem in the first place.
(c)Chazal instituted Bedikas Chametz at night-time - a. because most people are at home then (so they will not forget to perform the Mitzvah); 2. because night-time is better for searching (since the Mitzvah is to use a candle, as we shall see later, and of what use is a candle in the day!?)
(d)Once the time for Bedikas Chametz arrives - it is forbidden to begin learning Torah.
(a)The Gemara asks who will be obligated to search for Chametz by a house that was rented on the fourteenth (on the assumption that the owner had not yet fulfilled the Mitzvah). What are the two sides of the She'eilah?
(b)Why is there no proof from the Beraisa, which obligates the hirer to affix the Mezuzah? Why is Bedikas Chametz any different?
(c)What is the Gemara's conclusion?
(a)The Gemara asks whether it is the owner of the house who is obligated to search the house that he rented out on the fourteenth, because it is his Chametz, or whether the onus lies on the renter, since the Chametz is in his possession.
(b)There is no proof from the Beraisa, which obligates the hirer to affix the Mezuzah - because the onus of Mezuzah lies specifically on the person living in the house (as we derive from the word "Beisecha"), since he is the one who benefits from its protection. Chametz, on the other hand, is only mid'Rabanan, and the She'eilah remains on whom did they place the obligation.
(c)It depends, concludes the Gemara (quoting a Beraisa), who has the keys at the beginning of the fourteenth: Whichever of the two has the keys, is obligated to search for Chametz.
(a)The Gemara asks whether someone who rents an apartment on the morning of the fourteenth can assume that the owner searched for Chametz, or must he now perform the search. How do we try to resolve this from the Beraisa, which legitimizes anyone, even women, slaves and children (who are not normally eligible to give testimony) to testify on the fourteenth, that the owner of a certain house searched for Chametz the previous night?
(b)What precedent do we have for this regarding the Din of Ma'asros?
(c)Considering that the previous Din concerns 'Chaverim' only, the proof itself is not fool-proof. Why does the Lashon of the Beraisa 'ha'Kol Ne'emanim al Bi'ur Chametz' negate that explanation?
(d)If we adopt the alternative explanation - namely, that the house is considered examined only because of the testimony of the woman etc., why will we not be able to prove that the house per se, does not have a Chazakah of having been examined? How do we finally establish the Beraisa, and why are they believed?
(a)If even women, slaves and children (who are not normally eligible to give testimony) are believed to testify on the fourteenth, that the owner of a certain house searched for Chametz the previous night - then it must be, the Gemara contends, because, once the fourteenth enters, the house has a Chazakah that it has been examined.
(b)We are assuming that since most people are reliable when it comes to Bedikas Chametz, he has the Din of a Chaver; the precedent for this is the Beraisa, which assumes the storehouse of grain left by a Chaver when he dies, to be Ma'asered - even if the Miru'ach (flattening of the pile of grain after the winnowing) took place only one day before. Similarly in our case, since everyone is considered a Chaver, he is assumed to have searched his house on the eve of the fourteenth. Consequently, any testimony is merely a formality.
(c)'ha'Kol Ne'emanim al Bi'ur Chametz' - implies that it is due to the testimony of those concerned, that we assume the house to be b'Chezkas Baduk, and not because of an automatic Chazakah.
(d)Normally, a house may well have a Chezkas Baduk - but we are speaking in a case when there was actually a Chazakah that the owner had not searched the house, and the woman, the slave or the child now say that they themselves searched it, and they are believed, because Bedikas Chametz is only mi'de'Rabanan (see Rashash).
(a)They asked whether someone who rents a house on the thirteenth (see Tosfos DH 'ha'Maskir), or on the fourteenth (see Ritvo), on the understanding that it is Chametz-free, and then discovers that it is not, can they then claim that it is a 'false sale', and negate the conditions of the rental. How does Abaye resolve this She'eilah?
(a)Abaye resolves the She'eilah (whether someone who rents a house on the thirteenth, or on the fourteenth, on the understanding that it is Chametz-free, and then discovers that it is not, can then claim that it is a 'false sale', and negate the conditions of the rental) - it is not a false sale, he says, due to the fact that a person actually wants to perform a Mitzvah (in which case, he would not have retracted even if he had known that the house was not searched); and even where it is customary to pay someone to search for Chametz, people are happy to be able to perform Mitzvos with their money. So either way, the transaction remains in full force.
(a)Both Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah (who argue over eating Chametz in the final hour before midday), agree that Chametz is forbidden after mid-day - min ha'Torah. How do we know that it is not just a Rabbinical prohibition?
(b)Why can we not take the Pasuk in Bo "Ach ba'Yom ha'Rishon Tashbisu" literally?
(c)How do we know that it does not come to preclude the Pasuk of "Shiv'as Yamim Se'or Lo Yimatzei" - i.e. that "Shiv'as Yamim" forbids the day of the fifteenth, and "Ach ba'Yom ha'Rishon", that he must begin destroying it as soon as the night begins (and not just before daybreak).
(a)The Isur of eating after mid-day must be min ha'Torah - because had the Torah only forbidden it from nightfall of the fifteenth, then the Rabanan would have had no reason to forbid it from mid-day. Why not? Because the Rabanan only issue decrees when there is reason to suspect that people will mistakenly transgress the Torah-law ('Asu Seyag la'Torah'), something which does not apply here, because people do not confuse day and night.
(b)"Ach ba'Yom ha'Rishon Tashbisu" cannot be understood literally - because if it were (and we would only begin destroying Chametz on the fifteenth), how would we reconcile it with the Pasuk (also in Bo) "Shivas Yamim Se'or Lo Yimatzei b'Vateichem"?
(c)Neither can we resolve the two Pesukim by explaining that "Shiv'as Yamim" forbids the day of the fifteenth, and "Ach ba'Yom ha'Rishon", comes to teach us that one must begin destroying it as soon as the night begins (and not just before daybreak) - because that we know already from the two Hekeshim, one of destroying Chametz to eating it, the other, of eating Chametz to eating Matzah. And by the latter, the Torah writes in Bo "ba'Erev Tochlu Matzos".