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


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Pesachim 3



(a) When Beis Shamai say that a woman who gave birth to a still-born baby on the eve of the eighty-first day is Peturah from a Korban - they mean that if she miscarried on the eve of the eighty-first day after a previous birth, she does not need to bring a *second* set of Korbanos. This is because Beis Shamai considers her to be still within 'Me'los' (her complete period of Taharah). Why is that? Because (in spite of the fact that her eighty-day period of Tum'ah and Taharah has passed) she is not yet able to bring her Korban (which cannot be Shechted by night).

(b) Beis Hillel maintain that she is obligated to bring a new set of Korbanos for the second birth - since her period of Taharah has terminated, and she will be Tamei, should she see blood. If the night of the eighty-first has the same Din as the day with regard to Tum'ah, they argue, then why should it not have the same Din as it with regard to a Korban?

(c) Beis Shamai reply that one cannot really compare the *night* of the eighty-first, when she *cannot* bring her Korban, to the *day*, when she *can*.

(d) We see from the Lashon 'Mai Shena *Or* Shemonim ve'Echad mi'Yom Shemonim ve'Echad' - that 'Or' means 'the eve of'.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "be'Yom Zivchachem Ye'achel u'Mimochoras, ve'ha'Nosar ad Yom Shelishi": ... that Shelamim can only be eaten up until the end of the second *day* from when it is brought, and not on the following night (as is the case by a Todah, which can be eaten on the night following the first day).
2. ... in Tzav "ve'ha'Nosar mi'Besar ha'Zevach *ba'Yom ha'Shelishi*, ba'Esh Yisaref" - that Nosar (of Shelamim) must be burnt only on the following morning (and not immediately after they become Nosar (like the Todah is).
(b) the Gemara does indeed accept the proof from this Beraisa, which, like the previous one, uses the Lashon 'Yachol Yehei Ne'echal Or la'Shelishi' that Or means the eve of (and not day-time)!

(c) Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel, quoting his fathers, rules - that one must recite all eighteen Berachos (in the Ma'ariv of Motza'ei Yom Kipur), since one needs to add Havdalah in 'Chonen ha'Da'as'.

(d) Because of the Beraisa of Bei Shmuel (which explicitly gives the time for Bedikaas Chametz as the night), the Gemara retracts from its original interpretation of Rav Huna - When Rav Huna says 'Naghi, says the Gemara, he does not mean 'day', but 'the eve of', as was the custom in his town. (Note: Not only does *Or* mean 'on the eve of', but so does 'Naghi', which until now, we took for granted to mean 'day').

(a) Our Tana prefers to use 'Or' rather than 'Leilei' - to teach us to use more refined speech (since the word 'Laylah' has many unpleasant connotations, which 'Or' does not have).

(b) When Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi said 'Le'olam Al Yotzi Adam Davar Meguneh mi'Piv' - he quoted the Pasuk in No'ach - "Min ha'Beheimah ha'Tehorah, u'Min ha'Beheimah *Asher Eineneh Tehorah*" (a full eight letters more than the regular expression "ha'Temei'ah", which the Torah would normally have used).

(c) The Torah uses the word Tamei because it is shorter. However, it used this one occasion to employ a longer, more refined, expression, to teach us the importance of using refined speech.

(d) Rav Papa learns the same from the Pasuk, which writes "Ki Yihye Becha Ish Asher *Lo Yihye Tahor* Mikreh Laylah" - when it could have written *Tahor* instead.

(a) And Rebbi Yishmael in a Beraisa learns the same thing from the Pasuk in Tazri'a - which speaks about 'Merkav' by a man, and 'Moshav' by a woman (because it is not highly refined to speak about a woman riding, since that implies straddling the horse).

(b) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Sivchar Leshon Arumim" - that just like the Torah is particular to use refined speech in Torah she'bi'Kesav, so too, should the Rabbanan, in Torah she'be'Al Peh.
2. ... "ve'Da'as Sefasai Barur Milelu" - that this concept is not confined to Torah, but applies equally to our regular speech.
(c) The Pasuk writes ...
1. ... "Vatakam Rifkah ve'Na'aroseha, *va'Tirkavnah* Al ha'Gemalim" - because it is only when riding a horse or a donkey that one would avoid using en expression of riding by a woman (since she could sit side- saddle), but not by a camel, where, due the height, she would be afraid to sit side-saddle, and it is therefore natural for her to sit astride it.
2. ... "Vayikach Moshe es Ishto ve'es Banav *Vayarkivem* Al ha'Chamor" - because there, his sons are mentioned too, and for them to straddle a donkey is normal (this answer is enhanced by the fact that the Pasuk uses the masculine form of "va'Yarkive*m*).
3. ... in Shmuel (with regard to Avigail) "ve'Hi Rocheves Al ha'Chamor" - because she was afraid, either of the night, or of David, or of riding in the mountains, and when a woman is afraid, it becomes normal for her to straddle the animal she is riding.



  1. When both possible words are the same length - then one always uses the more refined one.
  2. When the more refined word is longer - then one uses the less refined one.
(b) The Torah write 'Rocheves' *without* a 'Vav' - which is shorter 'Yosheves' *with* one.

(c) There would have been no point in writing 'Yosheves' without a 'Vav' - since, we always learn something from a word with a 'Vav' missing (See also Tosfos DH 'Rocheves').

(d) It is preferable to write (or to speak) briefly - because it facilitates memorizing it.

(a) Rav did not talk to that Talmid - who said that they had worked on the Sugya until they had rendered it like a tired pig (whereas his friend had said 'like a tired goat').

(b) That Talmid sitting in front of Hillel (or in front of Rebbi), which caused him to predict that he would become a great Rebbi in Yisrael - said 'Why does one pick grapes in a state of Taharah, but one does not pick olives *in a state of Taharah'* (whereas his friend said *in a state of Tum'ah*). This is difficult to understand however, since 'one does not pick olives in a state of Taharah' is *longer* than 'in a state of Tum'ah' - refer to 5a. 2. - (see Rashash).

(c) The name of the Talmid was Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai (or Rebbi Yochanan).

(d) It is necessary to pick the grapes be'Taharah - because the owner is pleased that some juice flows from the grapes - to check whether the grapes are ripe (so it is 'be'Chi Yutan' - i.e. 'Huchshar Lekabel Tum'ah') but not from the olives - which the owner does not really care for until the oil flows from the olive-press.

(a) The two men who said 'I got the size of a bean', and 'I got the size of an olive' - were Kohanim talking about how much of the Lechem ha'Panim they had each received (and subsequently felt satisfied).

(b) The third Kohen aroused suspicion on his ancestry, by saying 'I got the size of a lizard's tail' (and a lizard is a non-Kasher animal). As a result, they discovered that he was a Chalal, and therefore not eligible to serve on the Mizbei'ach.

(c) In fact, the Gemara concludes, they did not examine his ancestry following this episode. What they did discover however, is that he was arrogant, and therefore unworthy to serve as a Kohen on the Mizbei'ach.

(a) The gentile boasted about how he had tricked the Jews - by participating in a Korban Pesach, even as far as obtaining the best part of the Korban.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira advised him that, if he really wanted the best part of the Korban, then the following year, he should ask for the fat-tail of the lamb.

(c) Every Jew knew that the fat-tail of the lamb of any Korban went on the Mizbei'ach, and was not distribution. Consequently, when, on the following year, the gentile asked for the fat-tail, he aroused their suspicion, which resulted in an investigation. When they discovered his true identity, they killed him (probably for stealing something to which he was not entitled - irrespective of whether he paid for it or not).

(d) Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira may have been living in Netzivin, they said, yet his net was cast over Yerushalayim! (See Tosfos DH 'me'Alyah', as to why he was not in Yerushalayim for Pesach.)

(a) When Rav Yehoshua Brei de'Rav Idi discovered that Rav Kahana had died - he went back to the Rabbanan who had sent him, with the rent in his clothes turned back (so as not to spring the bad news on them too suddenly. He entered crying, and it was they who commened 'He has died!, to which he replied, '*You*said it, not *I*'.

(b) He did not inform them directly, because of the posuk in Mishlei "u'Motzi Dibah Hu Kesil" (someone who spreads bad news is a fool - which, in Mishlei, usually has connotations of sin).

(c) When his colleagues asked him whether the wheat harvest was good that year, Yochanan Chakuka'ah replied that the barley harvest *was good* - from which they could infer that the wheat harvest was *not*.

(d) His colleagues did not agree with him though, when he mentioned the barley harvest (something which may have interested the horses, but not human beings). What he should have said was, either that the *previous year's* wheat-harvest was a good one, or that the *lentil* harvest harvest was good, from which they have drawn the same conclusion.

Next daf


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