PESACHIM 26 (Tisha b'Av) - Dedicated by Rabbi Dr. Eli Turkel of Ra'anana, Israel, in memory of his father, Reb Yisrael Shimon ben Shlomo ha'Levi Turkel. Isi Turkel, as he was known, loved Torah and worked to support it literally with his last ounce of strength. He passed away on 10 Av 5740.
1)
(a)Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai used to sit in the shade of the Heichal and Darshen all day. Why is there no proof from here for Abaye, who holds that Rebbi Yehudah permits even 'Lo Efshar v'Ka Michaven'? (Note: presumably it was called Lo Efshar, because there was no other area large enough for him to Darshen).
(b)What does Bar Kapara say about 'sound, vision and smell' in the Beis Hamikdash?
(c)How did they effect repairs in the Kodesh Kodshim?
(d)Why is there no proof for Rava from the fact that they were forbidden to see what they were doing, that 'Lo Efshar v'Ka Michaven' is forbidden?
1)
(a)Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai used to sit in the shade of the Heichal and Darshen all day - because the walls of the Heichal were made to protect the inside of the Heichal, not the outside, which is where he sat. Consequently, he was deriving benefit in an unusual way. To intentionally derive benefit in the regular manner may well be forbidden, even when it is unavoidable - even according to Rebbi Yehudah (not like Abaye).
(b)Bar Kapara said that there is no Me'ilah by 'sound, vision and smell' in the Beis Hamikdash.
(c)They effected repairs in the Kodesh Kodshim - by lowering repair-men in cages which enclosed them in front and at the sides, so that they should not derive benefit from the beautifully-adorned Kodesh Kodshim by gazing at them.
(d)There is no proof from Rava from here, that even 'Lo Efshar v'Ka Michaven is forbidden (even according to Rebbi Yehudah) - because they were particularly strict with regard to the Kodesh Kodshim. Perhaps by other Isurei Hana'ah, they were less strict. perhaps there, they did not decree.
2)
(a)In the second Lashon, Rava attempts to prove his point from Bar Kapara (see 1b). How does the Gemara refute his proof?
(b)What distinction does the Beraisa draw between someone who makes a replica of the Ketores for himself, and someone who smells the actual Ketores?
(c)How do we now amend Bar Kapara's statement to read?
(d)Why should there be a difference between sound and vision on the one hand, and smell on the other?
2)
(a)The Gemara refutes the proof from the Isur by sound, vision and smell. Who says that Bar Kapara is referring to the Kohanim who are serving inside the Heichal or the Azarah, who cannot possibly avoid being there. Perhaps he is talking about the people who are standing outside, who have the option of going away? And by Efshar v'Ka Michaven, even Rebbi Yehudah agrees is Asur, as we learnt above.
(b)Someone who makes a replica of the Ketores for himself to smell is Chayav (Kares or Chatas), whereas someone who smells the actual Ketores is Patur. He is however, Mo'el.
(c)We omit 'smell' from Bar Kapara's statement, which now reads 'Kol u'Mar'eh Ein Bahen Mishum Me'ilah'.
(d)There is no Me'ilah by sound and vision - because they are totally abstract, whereas smell, which consists of particles of Ketores, is not. Consequently, Me'ilah is applicable to it.
3)
(a)Is there ever a time when one is Patur from Me'ilah for smelling the Ketores?
(b)Which are the only two cases where Me'ilah applies even after their Mitzvah has been completed, according to the Rabanan?
(c)How does Rebbi Dosa explain the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "v'Hinicham Sham"?
(d)What does Rebbi Dosa insert instead of the Kohen Gadol's four white garments?
3)
(a)One is Patur from Me'ilah for smelling the Ketores - after the Mitzvah has been fulfilled (i.e. after the pillar of smoke has ascended).
(b)The only two cases where Me'ilah applies even after their Mitzvah has been completed, according to the Rabanan - are Terumas ha'Deshen (to take a shovelful of ashes and deposit it beside the Mizbe'ach - the first Mitzvah each morning), and the garments of the Kohen Gadol after Yom Kippur.
(c)Rebbi Dosa explains the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "v'Hinicham Sham" - to mean that he is not permitted to use them again on a subsequent Yom-Kippur.
(d)Instead of the Kohen Gadol's clothes, Rebbi Dosa inserts Eglah Arufah, which remains Asur b'Hana'ah even after the Mitzvah has been completed.
4)
(a)From where does Rebbi Yehudah, who holds 'Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad, Melamdin' learn that there is no Me'ilah on anything whose Mitzvah has been completed?
4)
(a)Rebbi Yehudah (who holds 'Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad, Melamdin') learns that there is no Me'ilah on anything whose Mitzvah has been completed - from the two Mi'utim (exclusions) "v'Samo" (by Terumas ha'Deshen - from which we learn 'he shall place it (never to use it again), but other things whose Mitzvah has been completed, are permitted'; and from "ha'Arufah" (see Tosfos, as to why two Pesukim are necessary).
5)
(a)'Hichnisah l'Rivkah, v'Dashah, Kesheirah; Bishvil she'Teinak v'Tadush, Pesulah'. What does 'le'Rivkah' mean?
(b)How does this Beraisa present Abaye with a Kashya?
(c)The Gemara compares this Beraisa to the Mishnah in Parah, which distinguishes between a Parah Adumah on which a bird rested, and one upon which a male came. What is the Halachic difference between them, and how is it derived from the one word "Asher Lo Ubad Bah"?
(d)But surely that Pasuk is written by Eglah Arufah, and not by Parah Adumah?
5)
(a)They used to tie four cows to the beams of the threshing-floor, and those cows would walk round the barn threshing the corn. That is what the Beraisa means by 'Hichnisah l'Rivkah'.
(b)Now 'Hichnisah l'Rivkah, v'Dashah, Kesheirah; Bishvil she'Teinak v'Tadush' - is surely a case of 'Lo Efshar v'Ka Michaven', yet the Beraisa concludes 'Pesulah', presenting Abaye with a Kashya!
(c)The Mishnah in Parah validates a Parah Adumah on which a bird rested - because the owner derives no benefit from this, and is therefore indifferent to it; but invalidates one upon which a male came - since the owner is obviously pleased with that (and the cow therefore becomes Pasul due to the Pasuk "Asher Lo Alah Aleha Ol"). This distinction is derived from the word "Asher Lo Ubad Bah" (which is written without a 'Kubutz', to read 'Avad') (Note: this phrase is the one that precedes "Asher Lo Alah Aleha Ol"). Now 'Ubad' means worked with - automatically, whereas 'Avad' means that he actually worked with it. To reconcile the apparent contradiction between the reading of the word and the way it is written, we make a compromise, and say that it doesn't matter whether or not he actually worked with it (or placed the yoke on it). What matters is that it was done with his consent i.e. he was pleased that it happened.
(d)True, "Asher Lo Ubad Bah" is indeed written by the Eglah Arufah, and not by the Parah Adumah. However, we learn one from the other with a 'Gezeirah Shavah' of "Ol" "Ol".
26b----------------------------------------26b
6)
(a)Someone who finds an article of clothing, is obligated to spread it out in order to air it. What must he take care not to do in the process?
(b)If he has guests, he is forbidden to spread it out in any case. Why does this appear to be a Kashya on Abaye?
(c)Why is it in fact, not a Kashya?
6)
(a)Someone who spreads out to air, an article of clothing that he found - must take care not to do so for his own benefit.
(b)The fact that he is forbidden to spread out the clothes because he has guests, is a proof that Lo Efshar u'Michaven is forbidden (even according to Rebbi Yehudah, since no-one argues with this Beraisa); so how can Abaye say otherwise?
(c)This is not however, a Kashya, because the reason that it is forbidden is because spreading out the clothes is tantamount to destroying them; either because of Ayin ha'Ra (the result of too many admiring eyes), or because he is inviting thieves.
7)
(a)May one derive any benefit from Kil'ayim of Sha'atnez?
(b)That explains why salesmen are permitted to wear clothes which contain Sha'atnez to demonstrate to non-Jewish purchasers. How does this disprove Rava's first Lashon (on the previous Amud)?
(c)How do we reconcile this Mishnah in Kil'ayim with the Mishnah in Nidah, which forbids the sale of Kil'ayim to non-Jews?
7)
(a)It is forbidden to warm oneself with clothes made of wool and linen, but other kinds of benefits are permitted.
(b)Salesmen who are permitted to wear clothes which contain Sha'atnez, if their intention is to demonstrate them to non-Jewish purchasers - is a case of Efshar v'Eino Michaven (since they have the option of doing like the Tzenu'im, who slung the clothes behind them (without actually wearing them) to demonstrate. This disproves Rava in the first Lashon, who maintains that even Rebbi Shimon only permits Eino Michaven when it is Iy Efshar, but not when it is Efshar.
(c)The Mishnah in Nidah, which forbids the sale of Kil'ayim to non-Jews, speaks when the location of the Kil'ayim is unknown (because we are afraid that the non-Jew will then re-sell it to a Jew, who, not finding Sha'atnez in the garment, will subsequently wear it); whereas the above Mishnah in Kil'ayim speaks when the location of the Sha'atnez is known.
8)
(a)'Tanur she'Hisiku bi'Kelifei Orlah O b'Kash shel Kil'ei ha'Kerem, Chadash, Yutatz'. The Din of Orlah does not apply by straw. Why does that of Kil'ei ha'Kerem apply?
(b)Why must a new oven be broken, but not an old one?
(c)What then, must one do with an old oven that was lit with Orlah or with Kil'ei ha'Kerem?
8)
(a)The Din of Kil'ei ha'Kerem applies to straw - because the Torah does not writes P'ri with regard to it.
(b)A new oven that was lit with Orlah or Kil'ei ha'Kerem must be broken - because its production was concluded through Isurei Hana'ah; an old one need not, because it was not.
(c)All one needs to do with an old oven - is to allow it to cool down, when it will once again be permitted.
9)
(a)Rebbi and the Rabanan argue over bread that was baked with Orlah produce in an old oven. Rebbi forbids it, the Rabanan permit it. What is the basis of their Machlokes?
(b)Why will Rebbi agree that if the bread was baked on the coals of Orlah, it is permitted? Then in which case does he forbid it?
(c)Rebbi is strict with regard to bread that was baked with Orlah produce in an old oven. Then on what grounds will he disagree with the Reisha of the Beraisa, which rules 'Chadash Yutatz'?
9)
(a)Rebbi forbids bread that was baked with Orlah produce in an old oven - because he holds 'Yesh Shevach Eitzim b'Pas' (meaning that some of the forbidden wood - in the form of the heat - is impregnated into the bread. The Rabanan do not hold of this. In their opinion, since none of the wood really enters the bread, the bread is permitted.
(b)Rebbi agrees that if the bread was baked on the coals of Orlah, it is permitted - because then, it is only after the wood has turned into coal that its heat enters the bread. He forbids it however, when it was baked over the wood while it is still emitting flames.
(c)Even though Rebbi is strict by bread that was baked with Orlah produce in an old oven - because he holds 'Yesh Shevach Eitzim b'Pas', we have no proof that he also holds 'Zeh v'Zeh Gorem, Asur'. In other words, seeing as the new oven will bake subsequent batches of bread together with permitted wood, it is both the Isur and the Heter which bakes it, and maybe there, Rebbi concedes that this is permitted.
10)
(a)If a yeast comprising both Chulin and Terumah falls into a dough (and neither on its own could have caused the dough to rise), causing it to rise, the Chachamim permit the dough to Zarim. What does Rebbi Eliezer say?
(b)How does Abaye explain Rebbi Eliezer?
(c)How does this enable us to establish the Beraisa of Tanur ('Chadash Yutatz'), like Rebbi Eliezer?
(d)How does the Gemara reject this contention because 'Who says that Abaye's interpretation of Rebbi Eliezer is correct?' What does the Gemara mean with this?
10)
(a)Rebbi Eliezer says that if a yeast comprising both Chulin and Terumah falls into a dough (and neither on its own could have caused the dough to rise), causing it to rise - we go after the last one to fall in.
(b)Abaye explains Rebbi Eliezer to mean that we go after the last one (i.e. to permit the dough if the Chulin-yeast fell in), only if the first one (the Terumah-yeast) had already been removed before it fell in. But if the Terumah-yeast was still in the dough when the Chulin-yeast fell in, then the dough will be Asur to Zarim, because 'Zeh v'Zeh Gorem, Asur'.
(c)So (according to Abaye) we see, that Rebbi Eliezer is the Tana who holds 'Zeh v'Zeh Gorem, Asur' - Consequently, we are able to establish the Beraisa 'Chadash Yutatz' like him.
(d)'Who says that Abaye's interpretation of Rebbi Eliezer is correct?', asks the Gemara. Perhaps Rebbi Eliezer means that we go after the last one yeast to fall in, even if the first one had not yet been removed, in which case he will actually hold 'Zeh v'Zeh Gorem, Mutar'. If that is so, Rebbi Eliezer cannot possibly be the author of the Beraisa!
