(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 7



(a) Chametz is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan from the beginning of the sixth hour (according to Tosfos, it is forbidden only at the *end* of the sixth hour).

(b) 'Chiti Kurdenisa' is wheat which grows in the area of Mount Ararat. Is is extremely hard, and can only become Chametz Nukshah (de'Rabbanan). In addition, Chametz in the sixth hour is only Asur de'Rabbanan. Nevertheless, the Rabbanan deprived all such Chametz of any value, and if someone betrothes a woman with it, she is not Mekudeshes.

(c) Chametz de'Rabbanan can over-ride Kidushin d'Oraysa - because anyone who is Mekadesh, does so on the understanding that the Rabbanan agree (as we say in the text of the Kidushin 'ke'Das Moshe *ve'Yisrael*'); and here, since the Rabbanan declared the Chametz Hefker, the man and woman tacitly agree that the Kidushin should not be valid.

(d) It is not possible to make Bitul Chametz, once the sixth hour arrives - since, as we explained earlier, the Chametz is no longer his; so how can he possibly be Mevatel it?

(a) The Beraisa, which permits someone sitting in the Beis-Hamedrash, who remembers that he has Chametz at home, to be Mavatel his Chametz on Yom- Tov - speaks when the dough has been kneaded, but not baked, and has not yet become Chametz (though it is unclear how this is technically possible).

(b) The fact that the Beraisa speaks about a Talmid who is sitting in the Beis-Hamedrash (in front of his Rebbe) - implies that that is why he has to be Mevatel the dough; otherwise, he would go and rectify it (i.e. bake it). Now if the dough was already Chametz, what is the difference whether he is sitting in front of his Rebbe or not? Either way, he has to be Mevatel it?

(a) The Gemara initially thought that, when Rav said 'ha'Pas she'Ifshah, Keyvan she'*Ravsah Matzah*, Muteres' - he meant that as long as that drawer contained more Matzah than Chametz, we assume that it is Matzah, and it is permitted.

(b) Why should we go after the majority of what the drawer contained, asks the Gemara? We should go after the last time it was used, like the Mishnah in Shekalim, which we will now proceed to explain?

(c) Money that one found in Yerushalayim in front of the animal- merchants, was always Ma'aser-Sheni - because most of the meat that was eaten in Yerushalayim, was from Ma'aser Sheni money. People would bring all their Ma'aser money to Yerushalayim on Yom-Tov, and whatever remained when they left, they would leave for the residents of Yerushalayim to eat after they had gone. Nor do we suspect that maybe it was the animal- merchants who had lost the money, because since there are more purchasers than sellers, the money probably fell from them - and is still Ma'aser.

(a) The reason that, if the money was found in the streets of Yerushalayim, it would depend upon whether it was found on Yom-Tov (when it would be Ma'aser) or during the rest of the year (when it would be Chulin) - is because the streets of Yerushalayim were swept daily, so that any money that was lost there, would be found on the same day. Consequently, it would depend upon when it was found. Har ha'Bayis however, was not swept every day. Consequently, money that was found, could have been lost a long time ago, so we just go after the majority of money that was taken there, which is Chulin.

(b) Har ha'Bayis did not need to be swept, because it was on a hill, and was kept clean by the winds - and besides, it was forbidden to enter the Har ha'Bayis with the dust on one's feet. This meant washing one's feet before entering the Har ha'Bayis, so it was never that dirty.

(c) We see from the case of the streets of Yerushalayim - that we do not go after the majority, but after the last one.

(d) We therefore amend Rav's statement to read, not 'ha'Pas she'Ifshah', but 'she'Rabu Yemei Matzah'. Since many days of Pesach have passed, the Matzah has had time to go bad, and is permitted. The Chidush is that even though it has gone *very* mouldy, we do not assume the Chametz to have been there from before Pesach; because, since he has been baking fresh Matzos every day, the remains of the Matzah on which he places the hot freshly-baked Matzos, quickly becomes very moldy.

5) The Beraisa of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, which considers money that was found in a box to be Ma'aser, if it was used *mainly* for Ma'aser - irrespective of what it was used for *last* - speaks either when the box was used for both Ma'aser-money and Chulin, and he cannot recall which was used last, or when piles of both Ma'aser-money and Chulin had been in the box at the same time, or when the money was found in a crevice in the box, when we cannot go after the last one (like we learnt earlier by Har ha'Bayis).




(a) The dispute between Rav Papa and Rav Papi concerns the text 'Al Bi'ur Chametz: whether it too, like 'Leva'er, refers to the past, or whether it only implies the future.

(b) The reason that they recite 'Al *Bi'ur* Chametz', although it is the *Bedikah* that one is now about to perform, is because the Bedikah is also part of the Biur.

(a) Even Rav Papi (who holds that 'Al Bi'ur Chametz' is acceptable), will agree that a Mohel must recite 'Al ha'Milah', since he is only a Sheli'ach (and 'La'mul' implies that the Mitzvah is incumbent upon *him*).

(b) The father of the baby recites 'Lamul es Be'ni'.

(c) According to Rav Papi, someone who Shechts a Chulin animal (even his own) recites 'Al ha'Shechitah', because 'Le' implies that there is a Mitzvah to perform the act over which he is reciting the Berachah, and Shechitah is not a Mitzvah (only a Hechsher); whereas the onus of bringing a Korban, right up to the Shechitah, lies on the owner (since the Torah writes in Vayikra "ve'Samach ve'Shachat").

(d) According to Rav Papi, the text for the Berachah over taking the Lulav is 'Al Netilas Lulav' - because as soon as one picks up the Arba Minim, he has fulfilled the Mitzvah, and 'Le...' implies that the Mitzvah will take place for an extended period of time.

(a) When describing the Berachah over the Lulav, Beraisa should have said 'Natlo, 'Yatza Bo' (instead of 'Natlo Litlos Bo').

(b) In fact, says the Gemara, one needs to amend the wording to read 'Natlo, Yatza Bo' (and not - 'Latzeis').

(c) According to the Din of the Beraisa, one recites 'Shehechiyanu' - over the Mitzvos of Lulav and Sucah - when preparing the Arba Minim and when constructing the Sucah respectively (however, *we* follow the later ruling issued by the Rishonim, namely, to recite the Berachah when we first take the Lulav in the morning of Yom-Tov, and when we make Kidush on the first night (respectively).

(d) Since the Gemara rules like Rav Papa, and 'Al Bi'ur Chametz does indeed imply the future just like 'Leva'er Chametz', either text is equally acceptable, and the same applies to the Mitzvah of Milah, even when it is the father who is performing the Mitzvah. (See Tosfos, DH 'Ki Peligi' and 've'Hilchasa').

(a) 'Kol ha'Mitzvos Mevarech Aleihen Over la'Asiyasan' - means that one is obligated to recite the Berachah just before performing the Mitzvah.

(b) The source from the Torah for this is the Pasuk in Vayishlach "ve'Hu Avar Lifneihem" (with regard to Avraham and the angels).

(c) The sole exception to this rule is Tevilah (incorporating washing the hands for Motzi), because sometimes, the person who is Toveling is unfit to recite a Berachah (e.g. a Ba'al Keri, who was not permitted to recite a Berachah until he had Toveled); so they fixed the Berachah for all Tevilos (as well as for washing the hands) *after* the Mitzvah had been performed. (See also Tosfos DH 'Al ha'Tevilah').

(a) Initially, Shofar was also listed as an exception, and the Berachah was to be recited only after the blowing - because one may perhaps not be able to blow, in which case he will have recited a Berachah Levatalah.

(b) The Gemara rejects this however, on the grounds that, in that case, the same should apply to Shechitah and Milah, where he is likely to botch the Mitzvah, and render the Berachah a Berachah Levatalah. So we see that, since most Ba'alei Tokei'a, Shochtim and Mohalim, achieve what they set out to do, we do not contend with the possibility that they may botch the attempt, rendering the Berachah a Berachah Levatalah.

(a) One would connect the
1. ... the second 'Metzi'a' and the first 'Chipus' - with the search for the goblet in Binyamin's sack (in Miketz).
2. ... the second 'Chipus' and the first 'Neros' - with the Pasuk in Tzefanyah, which describes how Hashem will search Yerushalayim for Tzadikim with lamps?
(b) We would not have learnt the Mitzvah of searching for Chametz from the search of Yerushalayim, since Hashem may have done this more casually, using smaller lights, whereas the search for Chametz must be done thoroughly and therefore needs stronger ones.
Next daf


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