PESACHIM 21 - Dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Reb Aharon Dovid ben Elimelech Shmuel Kornfeld (Muncasz/Israel/New York), who passed away on 3 Av 5761, by his daughter, Shifra, and family. May his love for Torah and for Eretz Yisrael be preserved in all of his descendants.


(a)In which case will Rebbi Yehoshua concede to Rebbi Eliezer, that one should allow the Terumah wine to fall into the Tamei Chulin wine below, and why is that?

(b)How does Rava explain the Beraisa which says that Rebbi Eliezer agrees with Rebbi Yehoshua in the above case (when there are a hundred barrel-fulls of Chulin wine in the wine-press) that, if he cannot save the wine b'Taharah, he should rather allow it to fall into the wine-press?

(c)Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua retains the text as it stands. He establishes the Beraisa by a vessel whose inside is Tahor, but whose outside is Tamei. What does this mean? How do we now explain the Beraisa?


(a)Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina says that if the Tamei Chulin wine is a hundred times more than the Terumah wine that is about to spill into it, then one should allow the wine to spill rather than render it Tamei with one's hands - since in that case, the Terumah wine will become Batel (in a hundred and one), so that no big loss will be incurred.

(b)Rava explains that we must indeed change the wording of the Beraisa, and switch the names to read 'u'Modeh Rebbi Yehoshua l'*Rebbi Eliezer*'.

(c)According to Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua - 'u'Modeh Rebbi Eliezer l'Rebbi Yehoshua' refers, not to the Seifa of the Beraisa (to the case when they are not able to save the Terumah wine b'Taharah), but to the Reisha, when they are. The Chidush is when the inside of the vessel is Tahor, but the outside is Tamei, to tell us that even in this case, Rebbi Eliezer permits using such a vessel, and he does not decree that they may inadvertently allow the wine to touch the back of the vessel and become Tamei.

Hadran Alach, 'Or l'Arba'ah-Asar'

Perek Kol Sha'ah


(a)'Kol Sha'ah she'Mutar Le'echol, Ma'achil li'Vehemto' ... Is that not obvious? What is the Chidush?

(b)According to Rebbi Yehudah, Chametz must be burnt. What do the Chachamim say?

(c)We infer from our Mishnah that as long as Chametz may not be eaten, it may not be fed to one's animals either. In that case, why can the author of the Reisha of our Mishnah not be ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah?

2. ... Rebbi Meir?

(d)Who then, must be the author, and what does he mean by 'Kol Sha'ah she'Mutar Le'echol, Ma'achil'?


(a)The statement 'Kol Sha'ah she'Mutar Le'echol, Ma'achil li'Vehemto' - is indeed obvious. The Tana does not mention it for its intrinsic Chidush, but for the inference, as will be explained in the Gemara.

(b)According to the Chachamim, it does not matter how one gets rid of this Chametz, even if it is by breaking it into crumbs and throwing it to the wind, or by casting it into the sea.

(c)The author of our Mishnah cannot be ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah - because according to him, there is the fifth hour, when Chametz may not be eaten, yet one may feed it to one's animals.

2. ... Rebbi Meir - because, according to him, the Mishnah should have been more brief. It should have written 'Kol Sha'ah she'Ochel, Ma'achil.

(d)The author of our Mishnah must therefore be Raban Gamliel, who differentiates between Chulin and Terumah. What the Tana is therefore saying is 'Kol Sha'ah she'Mutar Kohen Le'echol, Yisrael Ma'achil li'Vehemto'.


(a)Why does the Tana need to mention both animals and beasts? Why can we not learn one from the other?

(b)And why does he need to mention birds?


(a)If his animals leave over some of the Chametz, he will see it and destroy it, which is not the case by beasts, who tend to hide what they leave over. Beasts on the other hand, hide the Chametz, and, until he finds it, he will transgress neither 'Bal Yera'eh' nor 'Bal Yimatzei', whereas animals leave it in the open, and, should he fail to destroy it before Pesach, he will transgress 'Bal Yera'eh' and 'Bal Yimatzei'.

(b)The Tana only mentions birds because he has mentioned animals and beasts, not because of any inherent Chidush.


(a)As long as Chametz is Mutar b'Hana'ah, is it not obvious that one may sell it to a gentile? Why does the Tana need to tell us that?

(b)Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira holds like Beis Shamai, who forbids the sale of Chametz to a gentile. Why is that?

(c)What does Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira say?


(a)The Tana informs us that one may sell Chametz to a gentile - to preclude the opinion of Beis Shamai, who forbid doing so, unless he knows that the gentile will definitely get rid of it before Pesach.

(b)According to Beis Shamai, one is obligated to ensure that one's Chametz is destroyed before Pesach.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira forbids the sale of Kutach (a condiment that contains bread) to a gentile within thirty days of Pesach (since the gentile is unlikely to finish it before Pesach - like the opinion of Beis Shamai (see Tosfos, DH Rebbi Yehudah, who establishes Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah like Beis Hillel).



(a)Why does the Tana then need to add 'u'Mutar b'Hana'ah'. Is that not included in the previous cases?

(b)'Avar Zemano, Asur b'Hana'aso'. What is the Chidush?

(c)'ve'Lo Yasik Bo Tanur v'Kirayim'. What is the Chidush?


(a)'u'Mutar b'Hana'ah' is speaking about Chametz which was scorched before it became Asur. The Chidush is that one may even benefit from it after the time of Isur (Note: See Rosh, Si'man 1, who nevertheless forbids eating the scorched Chametz).

(b)'Avar Zemano, Asur b'Hana'aso' - means even in the time when the Chametz is only Asur mid'Rabanan i.e. during the sixth hour (Refer to 7a, 1 a. and b.), it is Asur b'Hana'ah, and if someone betrothes a woman with it, she is not betrothed, and is permitted to go and receive Kidushin from another man.

(c)And the Chidush of 've'Lo Yasik Bo Tanur v'Kirayim' - is that even according to Rebbi Yehudah, in whose opinion, one is obligated to burn the Chametz, one is not permitted to derive benefit from it whilst burning it (see Gilyon ha'Shas).


(a)What does Chizkiyah learn from the Pasuk in Bo "Lo Ye'achel Chametz"?

(b)He argues with Rebbi Avahu's principle. What is Rebbi Avahu's principle?

(c)What does Rebbi Avahu learn from the Pasuk in Re'eh "Lo Sochlu Kol Neveilah, la'Ger Asher bi'She'arecha Titenenah" ... ?


(a)Chizkiyah learns from the Pasuk "Lo Ye'achel Chametz" - that Chametz is Asur b'Hana'ah (because 'Ye'achel' incorporates an Isur Hana'ah).

(b)Rebbi Avahu holds that every Lashon of Achilah (even 'Lo Yochal', 'Lo Sochal' and 'Lo Sochlu') also incorporates Isur Hana'ah).

(c)Rebbi Avahu learns from the Pasuk "Lo Sochlu Kol Neveilah, la'Ger Asher bi'She'arecha Titenenah" - that since the Torah needs to permit Neveilah to a Ger, "Lo Sochlu" must incorporate Hana'ah (though that is only according to the opinion of Rebbi Meir, as we shall soon see).


(a)The Torah writes "la'Ger Asher bi'She'arecha Titenenah va'Achalah, O Machor l'Nochri". According to Rebbi Meir, one may also sell Neveilah to a Ger or give it to a gentile. From where does he learn this?

(b)What sort of a Ger is the Pasuk referring to?


(a)According to Rebbi Meir, one may also sell Neveilah to a Ger or give it to a gentile - because, since the Torah writes "la'Ger Asher bi'She'arecha Titenenah va'Achalah, O Machor l'Nochri" - in the middle (rather than "Titenenah la'Ger Asher bi'She'arecha va'Achalah, O Machor l'Nochri"), we read the Pasuk as if it would have written "la'Ger Asher bi'She'arecha Titenenah (va'Achalah) O Machor, Titenenah (va'Achalah) O Machor l'Nochri".

(b)The Ger referred to in the Pasuk is a Ger Toshav - who remains a gentile, but who undertakes not to serve idols.


(a)Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with Rebbi Meir. What does he say?

(b)His opinion is based on the fact that the Torah writes "O Machor l'Nochri" (which divides the two) - and not "UMachor l'Nochri". How does Rebbi Meir deal with this observation?

(c)Why does Rebbi Yehudah consider that unnecessary?


(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah - the Torah is particular that one deals with Neveilah exactly as it stipulates: i.e. by giving it to a Ger or selling it to a gentile (and not vice-versa).

(b)Rebbi Meir learns from "O Machor l'Nochri" - that one should preferably give Neveilah to a Ger than sell it to a gentile (but not to preclude any of the four possibilities).

(c)Rebbi Yehudah considers that unnecessary. It is obvious, he argues, that one should if possible, give Neveilah to a Ger, since one is obligated to sustain him.


(a)Rebbi Avahu learns from the above Beraisa that whenever the Torah writes "Lo Yochal", "Sochal" or "Sochlu", it includes an Isur Hana'ah, unless otherwise specified (like the Pasuk quoted there). Why does this go like Rebbi Meir, but not like Rebbi Yehudah?

(b)From where does Rebbi Avahu learn his principle according to Rebbi Yehudah?

(c)What does Rebbi Meir do with the Pasuk "la'Kelev Tashlichun Oso"?

(d)From where does Rebbi Yehudah learn that Chulin that were Shechted in the Azarah are Asur b'Hana'ah?


(a)Rebbi Avahu cannot learn from Rebbi Yehudah in the above Beraisa that whenever the Torah writes "Lo Yochal", "Sochal" or "Sochlu", it includes an Isur Hana'ah unless otherwise specified - because, according to Rebbi Yehudah, who says that we need the details in the Pasuk to permit Hana'ah (from which we can deduce that otherwise, it would be forbidden, as is the case according to Rebbi Meir)? Perhaps "Lo Sochlu" does not incorporate an Isur Hana'ah, and we need the details to instruct us to give Neveilah to a Ger or to sell it to a gentile.

(b)According to Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Avahu learn his principle from Tereifah, from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "la'Kelev Tashlichun Oso" - 'Oso Ata Mashlich la'Kelev, v'I Ata Mashlich Kol Isurin she'ba'Torah'.

(c)Rebbi Meir learns from "Oso" - 'Oso Ata Mashlich la'Kelev, v'I Ata Mashlich Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah (to teach us that Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah are Asur b'Hana'ah mid'Oraisa).

(d)According to Rebbi Yehudah, Chulin that were Shechted in the Azarah are only Asur b'Hana'ah mid'Rabanan.


(a)Why do we need "Oso", according to Rebbi Yehudah, to teach us that all other things that are forbidden to eat are also Asur b'Hana'ah? Why could we not have made the same inference had the Torah just written "la'Kelev Tashliche*nu*"?

(b)And according to Rebbi Meir, why do we need "Oso" to forbid Hana'ah by Chulin that were Shechted in the Azarah? Why do we not know this from the fact that they are forbidden to eat?


(a)Had the Torah just written "la'Kelev Tashlichenu" (and not "Oso") we would have just learnt from there that Hash-m gives everyone his due reward, because here, He is rewarding the dogs for not barking in Egypt when He went round the Egyptian houses killing their first-born (even though they do normally bark when the Angel of Death arrives on the scene).

(b)The Isur Achilah of Chulin that were Shechted in the Azarah - derives from the Pasuk in Re'eh "Ki Yirchak Mimecha ha'Makom, v'Zavachta v'Achalta" - that one may only Shecht Chulin when one is far from the Azarah, but not when one is inside it; and in that Pasuk, there is no La'av for eating them, which would incorporate Hana'ah, according to Rebbi Avahu. That explains why Rebbi Meir needs "Oso" to forbid it.