ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 13
(a) The problem with Rav (who rules like Rebbi Yehudah, that Chametz is
Mutar be'Hana'ah in the fifth hour, but may not be eaten) from the Mishnah
in Kol Sha'ah (which states 'Kol Sha'ah she'Mutar Le'echol, Ma'achil') -
is that this Mishnah (which is a S'tam - which, when it follows a
Machlokes [as it does in this case] is generally Halachah) seems to hold
like Rebbi Meir, that eating Chametz is permitted during the fifth hour?
(b) If the Tana in Kol Sha'ah held like Rebbi Meir, he ought to have said
'Kol Sha'ah she'Ochel, Ma'achil'. Why did he add the word 'she'Mutar' -
unless it is because he holds like Raban Gamliel, who permits Kohanim to
eat Chametz of Terumah in the fifth hour; and what he is saying is that,
as long as some people (Kohanim) are permitted to eat Chametz, everyone is
permitted to feed it to their animals (or to derive any other benefit from
(c) 'Halachah ke'Divrei ha'Machri'a' - applies only when the two Tana'im
between whom the third Tana is making the compromise, have indicated that
they with the Machria's argument, but do not abide by it. In that case,
the Machri'a would hold like each of the opinions in one point, making it
a majority opinion (e.g. in our case, had Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah
both mentioned Terumah and Chulin in their statements, then Raban Gamliel
would, in fact, be agreeing with Rebbi Meir by Terumah, and with Rebbi
Yehudah by Terumah). But now that they did not mention Terumah, not only
is Raban Gamliel a third opinion, but also a minority one. (See Tosfos
D.H. 'Raban', as to why the Halachah should not anyway be like Raban
Gamliel [or Rebbi Meir] - even though his opinion appears in a Stam
(d) Rebbi Elazar ben Yehudah Ish Bartosa in the Beraisa, quoting Rebbi
Yehoshua, says - that when the fourteenth of Nisan falls on Shabbos, all
Chametz must be destroyed on Friday, including Terumah (whether it is
Tamei, a Safek or Tahor), and that one only leaves over sufficient Tahor
Terumah for two meals. Clearly, he follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah
and Rebbi Meir, who make no distinction between Terumah and Chulin.
(a) The Rabbanan counter Rebbi Elazar ben Yehudah's claim (that, if, by
this late hour [Shabbos, Erev Pesach], they had not managed to find
Kohanim to eat the Terumah-Chametz, they would be most unlikely to find
any now) - by pointing out the possibility of Kohanim having arrived
within the Techum Shabbos before Shabbos came in, and who will now be
available to eat the Terumah-Chametz.
(b) In that case, Rebbi Elazar ben Yehudah counters, why are Teluyos not
also permitted, on the grounds that maybe Eliyahu will come and declare
them to be Tahor (see Kovetz Shi'urim as to how Eliyahu can be believed to
(c) The Chachamim reply with the tradition that Eliyahu will not come on
Erev Shabbos or Erev Yom-Tov, in order not to interfere with the Shabbos
(d) The Tana in the Beraisa, who rules like Rebbi Elazar ben Yehudah -
does not necessarily hold like Rebbi Yehudah (with regard to prohibiting
the eating of Chametz in the fifth hour). Why not? Because that ruling may
be restricted to the Machlokes regarding the burning of Terumah Tehorah,
which Rebbi Elazar requires to be done on Friday, and the Rabbanan do not;
but as far as the eating of Chametz is concerned, the Tana could just as
well hold like Rebbi Meir.
(a) Someone deposited a pouchful of Chametz with Yochanan Chakuka'ah. On
Erev Pesach, mice bit a hole in it and the Chametz was spilling out. For
the first four hours, Rebbi ruled that he should wait, in case the owner
arrived to fetch it; then, in the fifth hour, he instructed him to sell it
in the market, ostensibly to gentiles (but not to Jews - like Rebbi
(b) Rav Yosef rejects that contention - because, who says that Rebbi meant
that he should sell the Chametz to gentiles? Perhaps he permitted selling
it even to Jews.
(c) Even assuming that Rebbi followed the opinion of Rebbi Meir, he would
not have permitted Yochanan Chakuka'ah to buy the Chametz himself -
because a person is not allowed to do anything that causes suspicion to
fall on him.
(a) The Beraisa prohibits a Gabai Tzedakah from changing Tzedakah coins
under his charge, or the Gabai of the soup-kitchen to buy excess food;
both of these must be done via a third person.
(b) This is derived from the Pasuk "vi'Heyisem Neki'im me'Hashem
(a) According to Rav Yosef's original interpretation of Rebbi - Rebbi
instructed Yochanan Chakuka'ah to sell the Chametz to not-Jews (and not to
Jews - like the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah).
(b) Rav Yosef connects Rebbi's ruling here (to sell the Chametz in order
to spare the owner a loss) and that of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who rules
in Bava Metzi'a that if a deposit of grain is going bad, the guardian
should sell it to prevent the owner any further loss.
(c) The Rabbanan only argue there with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, Abaye
quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying, by a small regular loss. That is when
they say that the guardian should not sell the grain. But once the losses
exceed the regular level, even *they* agree that the grain should be sold
- and that would certainly be the case here, where the owner was about to
lose his entire sack of flour.
(a) 'Al Gav ha'Itztava' means on the seat of the shelter. Now what is the
point of putting the loaves *there* where they will not be seen by the
residents of Yerushalayim? - So the correct text must therefore be 'Al
Gabei ha'Itztava' which means on top of the shelter, where they would be
(b) Rachba, quoting his Rebbe, Rav Yehudah, testified that there were in
fact, *two* rows of shelters on the Har ha'Bayis, and not just *one*.
(a) The breads of the Todah were Pasul - because since they could not be
brought on the fourteenth (as we shall see immediately), all the people
who had arrived in Yerushalayim and who had promised to bring a Korban
Todah, had to bring it by the thirteenth. As a result, there would have
been a surplus of Todah loaves (including ten Chametz-loaves for each
Todah), and it would have been difficult to find eaters for all of them.
Consequently, many loaves would have been left until the morning of the
fourteenth, when they would have been 'Nosar'.
(b) The loaves could not have been brought on the fourteenth - because
they had to be eaten before mid-day, and this would have meant curtailing
their allotted time of eating (i.e. the day on which they were brought,
plus the following night.
(a) According to Rebbi Yanai, the loaves were Pasul - since the Korban
which they accompanied got lost before it was Shechted. This renders the
loaves Pasul because they are useless, and not because of a real Pesul.
(b) The bread goes together with the Todah with which it was designated.
Consequently, if the Todah got lost, the breads become Pasul.
(c) The bread is secondary to the Todah with which it was designated, but
not vice-versa (since the Todah is the Ikar, and the breads, Tafel).
Consequently, if the breads got lost, the Todah can be brought with new
(d) What Rebbi Yanai really said was - that our Mishnah speaks when the
Todah had already been Shechted (in which case, the loaves can no longer
be redeemed, and also become Pasul if they are taken out of Yerushalayim),
and the blood spilled (which renders the breads Pasul inasmuch as they can
no longer be eaten). This conforms with the opinion of Rebbi, who
maintains that the breads of the Todah become sanctified (to prevent their
redemption) with Shechitah alone (even though the blood was not
(a) Prior to the Shechitah of the animal, the designated loaves of the
Todah have the status of Kedushas Damim (they belong to Hekdesh for their
monetary value, but are not intrinsically holy).
If the blood of the Kivsei Atzeres was sprinkled she'Lo Lishman - Yisrael
will not have fulfilled their obligation, but the lambs may nevertheless
be eaten (as if they were ordinary Shelamim - as is the Din by all
Korbanos that were Shechted she'Lo Lishman, with the exception of a Korban
Pesach and a Chatas).
(b) According to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - they only adopt Kedushas
ha'Guf after the blood has been sprinkled.
(c) If Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon holds like his father, we can establish
our Mishnah when the blood had already been received in the bowl for
sprinkling (in which case Rebbi Shimon holds 'Kol ha'Omed Lizerok,
ke'Zaruk Dami'), and then spilt. The loaves will have adopted Kedushas
ha'Guf with the receiving of the blood, but will then have become Pasul
(inasmuch as they can no longer be eaten) when the blood spilt.
(a) According to Rebbi Elazar in a Beraisa - they used two Kasher Todah-
loaves, and not Pasul ones.
(b) According to Aba Shaul, they did not use Todah-loaves at all - but two
cows that were plowing on Har ha'Mishchah (alias Har ha'Zeisim). When they
removed one of them (at the beginning of the *fifth* hour), everyone knew
that they may no longer eat Chametz, and when they removed the second one
(at the beginning of the *sixth*), they knew that they must start burning