ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 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
(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
(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
(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.
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
(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.
(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).
(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.
2. ... the second 'Chipus' and the first 'Neros' - with the Pasuk in
Tzefanyah, which describes how Hashem will search Yerushalayim for
Tzadikim with lamps?