(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Pesachim 33


QUESTION: The Gemara, explaining the Beraisa cited earlier (32b) which says that Me'ilah is more severe than other Isurim in one respect, offers several ways to explain in what manner Me'ilah is more severe than all other Isurim. One explanation, suggested by Mar brei d'Ravna, is that one is Chayav for Me'ilah even when it is done without intention ("Eino Miskaven"), but one is not Chayav for any other Isur when it is done without intention. For example, on Shabbos, if one intended to cut an item which it is permissible to cut (it is already detached from the ground) and he unintentionally cut something which it is forbidden to cut (it is attached to the ground), he is Patur because he did not do what he intended to do. This is not so when it comes to Me'ilah, though. If one had intention to warm himself with fabric of Chulin and he unintentionally warmed himself with the wool from a Korban Olah, he is Chayav for Me'ilah.

RASHI (DH she'Im Niskaven) explains that the words "Eino Miskaven" in this sense refer to Mis'asek (one who performs an Isur without intention to do so). Mis'asek is normally Patur, "*even on Shabbos*," Rashi asserts, because in order to be Chayav one must do a "Meleches Machsheves."

(1) What does Rashi mean that "even" on Shabbos one is Patur for an Isur done unintentionally? Why would we have thought that Shabbos is more stringent than any other Isur, that Rashi has to point out that "*even*" on Shabbos one is Patur?

In fact, Rashi tells us that Mis'asek is Patur because one is only Chayav for "Meleches Machsheves," an act done intentionally. The words "Meleches Machsheves" were stated with regard to Shabbos -- why, then, should Mis'asek be Patur not only on Shabbos but by all other Isurim? If anything, it is *more* obvious that Mis'asek is Patur by Shabbos than by other Isurim.

(2) TOSFOS RABEINU PERETZ, TOSFOS HA'ROSH and TOSFOS SHANZ, as well as the P'NEI YEHOSHUA, point out further that not only does the exemption of "Meleches Machsheves" not apply to other Isurim, but we find that one will indeed *be Chayav* for other Isurim done b'Mis'asek (Shabbos 73a; Rashi there, DH d'Savur. Why, then, does Rashi say "even on Shabbos," when the Petur applies *only* on Shabbos?

(a) The DEVAR SHMUEL suggests that Rashi here holds that the Petur of "Mis'asek" does apply to other Isurim besides Shabbos. (This is learned from the word "Bah," see Kerisus 19 and Insights). Even though one is also Patur for "Mis'asek" on Shabbos, that exemption is not the normal exemption of "Mis'asek," but rather a new verse is needed to teach that "Mis'asek" on Shabbos is Patur -- the verse which teaches that Shabbos requires "Meleches Machsheves."

Why is this extra verse necessary? Because the general Petur of "Mis'asek" will not suffice to exempt one on Shabbos, for the following reason. On Shabbos, if a person did not realize that it was Shabbos and he did a Melachah, thinking that it was a weekday, he is Chayav to bring a Korban. Why is that act of unintentional transgression not included in the general Petur of "Mis'asek?" The CHELKAS YO'AV (OC 7) concludes that it must be learned from a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that the Petur of Mis'asek does not apply to this particular Halachah of Shabbos. If so, we might have thought that all forms of "Mis'asek" are Chayav on Shabbos as well. Therefore, Rashi says that "*even* on Shabbos" one is Patur for Mis'asek; that is, one is Patur when one knew it was Shabbos but intended to do an act which was Mutar and unintentionally did an act which was Asur. This is what Rashi means by saying one is Patur from Mis'asek *even* on Shabbos. (DEVAR SHMUEL)

(b) The Gemara gives a second answer to explain why Me'ilah is more severe than other Isurim. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak says that the difference between Me'ilah and other Isurim is that one is Chayav for Me'ilah "b'Mis'asek." RASHI (DH Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak) explains this as follows. Rav Nachman argues with the explanation of Mar brei d'Ravna, because he maintains that even by non-Me'ilah Isurim one would be *Chayav* for the type of Eino Miskaven described by Mar brei d'Ravna, since one performed the same act that he intended to perform; he just did not perform the act on the *object* for which he had intended. What makes Me'ilah exceptional is that one is Chayav when one intended to do one act and unintentionally did an entirely *different* act; for example, he intended to *take out* an object from a vessel and he ended up *rubbing oil* of Hekdesh on his hand. Such a mistaken transgression is a true case of Mis'asek, which is Patur when other Isurim are involved.

(Incidentally, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak and Mar brei d'Ravna appear to be arguing the same Machlokes argued by Rava and Abaye, in Shabbos 73a, about how to define Mis'asek; see Chart there).

Rashi says that according to Rav Nachman, a person who does the act he *intended* to do but with a different object (for example, he intended to cut something detached and he cut something attached) is Chayav when Isurim besides Me'ilah are involved. It is not included in the Petur of "Mis'asek" because one did a "Meleches Machsheves"; he performed the same action that he intended to.

How can "Meleches Machsheves" affect the Halachah with Isurim other than Shabbos? The principle of "Meleches Machsheves," which is stated with regard to Shabbos, applies only to Shabbos!

Perhaps there is a printing error in the words of Rashi. The words "even on Shabbos," which appear in Rashi above (DH she'Im Niskaven) and which are difficult to understand there, belong in Rashi here (DH Rav Nachman), which is difficult to understand *without* those words. (The words should be placed right after the phrase "Meleches Machsheves Hi v'Chayav -- *Afilu b'Shabbos*"). Rashi is saying that even on Shabbos one is Chayav because it not only is not Mis'asek, it is even a "Meleches Machsheves." The words "even on Shabbos" do not mean that one is *Patur* for Mis'asek even on Shabbos, but that one is *Chayav* for "Meleches Machsheves" on Shabbos. (M. Kornfeld)

QUESTION: There is a Machlokes (32a) whether one is Chayav or Patur for the Isur of Chametz when one eats Chametz of Terumah on Pesach. The Gemara adds that the Machlokes applies only when the Chametz had become Terumah prior to Pesach. If the grain, though, became Chametz on Pesach before Terumah was taken from it, everyone agrees that the Chametz is *not* Terumah and one is Chayav for eating Chametz on Pesach. Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua explains that the reason is because the Torah calls Terumah "Reishis," which is explained to mean "Reishis she'Sheyareha Nikarin." In this context, this means that one of the conditions of Terumah is that it must permit the rest of the produce from which it was taken. If one cannot actually eat the remainder of the produce, one's declaration of separating Terumah is meaningless. In the case of Chametz on Pesach which is Tevel, even when Terumah is taken from it the remainder is Asur (because it is Chametz), Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua explains.

REBBI AKIVA EIGER (Gilyon ha'Shas) and the TZELACH ask that if the problem with taking Terumah from Chametz on Pesach is that doing so will not serve to permit the produce, then it depends solely on what the remainder of the produce is, and not what the Terumah itself is! That is, if part of the grain was made into Matzah and part became Chametz, if one separates the Chametz as Terumah for the remainder (the Matzah), then the Terumah *should be* valid. Why, then, does the Beraisa insist that Chametz cannot be made into Terumah?


(a) The SEFAS EMES answers that the requirement of "Reishis she'Sheyareha Nikarin" does not depend on the produce which remains after Terumah has been separated from it. Rather, it depends on the status of the Terumah itself. That is, the Terumah is valid if the remainder would be permitted to eat had some of this Terumah not been made into Terumah but remained Chulin (or had the remainder of the dough had the same Halachic status as the Terumah). We look only at the Terumah and not at the rest of the produce. In our case, then, Chametz cannot become Terumah because the Chametz itself would not have become Mutar had Terumah been taken on its behalf.

(The RASHASH cites a Yerushalmi which asks the question of the Tzelach and gives the answer of the Sefas Emes.)

(It should be pointed out that Rebbi Akiva Eiger, when he asked his question, may have based himself of the Gemara in Eruvin (37b). The Gemara there discusses another aspect of ""Reishis she'Sheyareha Nikarin," and clearly understands it to be a requirement related to the produce which remains, and not the Terumah itself.)


QUESTION: Rebbi Yochanan says that one may squeeze the juice out of grapes that are Tamei and the juice will remain Tahor, as long as one squeezes grapes which are less than a k'Beitzah in size. The Gemara explains that Rebbi Yochanan is of the opinion that the liquid inside a fruit is not part of the fruit, and it does not become Tamei along with the fruit.

RASHI (DH ka'Saver Mashkin Mifkad Pekidi) asks why, according to this opinion, the grape which is Tamei does not make the juice inside of it Tamei through contact. The reason it does not make the juice Tamei, Rashi answers, is because as long as the juice is inside the grape, it does not qualify as a "Mashkeh" and thus it cannot be Mekabel Tum'ah. Rashi adds that the juice inside of the other grapes cannot join to the juice inside of one grape to make a large enough Shi'ur of juice to become Tamei, because the other grapes only touch the outside of the grape and not the juice inside.

What does Rashi mean by this added sentence? Even if the juice of the other grapes join the juice of this grape so that they add up to a Revi'is, Rashi already wrote that it will not be Mekabel Tum'ah because the juice was never outside of the grape and is not yet considered a Mashkeh! Conversely, if what Rashi says here at the ends of his comment is correct, that one grape does not join to the grape next to it, why did Rashi have to explain that the liquid inside is not considered a Mashkeh? Even if it *is* a Mashkeh, it will not become Tamei because there is not enough juice in the grape to be Mekabel Tum'ah! (TZELACH)

ANSWER: The RASHASH and NIMUKEI HA'GRIV explain that the second statement of Rashi is an alternate approach. If so, Rashi is apparently unsure whether or not liquids totaling less than a Revi'is become Tamei or not. First, Rashi suggests if even a minute amount of liquid can become Tamei, we must conclude that the juice inside a grape is not a Mashkeh at all, and therefore will not become Tamei. Secondly, Rashi states that if Mashkeh that is less than a Revi'is is *not* Mekabel Tum'ah, then we have a simpler solution to the question of why the liquid in the grape does not become Tamei through contact with its skin. That is, Rashi here is in doubt whether a liquid can be *Mekabel* Tum'ah (as opposed to *transmit* Tum'ah) when it is less than a Revi'is, and therefore Rashi gives these two alternate explanations. TOSFOS in Shabbos (91a, DH Iy) says, regarding whether food less than a k'Zayis is Mekabel Tum'ah, a related question, that Rashi changed his opinion in this matter, at times saying it is and at other times saying it is not. It is then fully within reason to suggest that Rashi here is offering two explanations in order to cover both opinions.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,