ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 21
PESACHIM 21 - sponsored by Heshy Follman, of New York, N.Y.
(a) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina says that if the Tamei Chulin wine is a
hundred times more than the Terumah wine that is about to spill into it,
then one should allow the wine to spill rather than render it Tamei with
one's hands - since in that case, the Terumah wine will become Batel (in a
hundred and one), so that no big loss will be incurred.
***** Hadran Alach, 'Or le'Arba'ah-Asar'! *****
(b) Rava explains that we must indeed change the wording of the Beraisa, and
switch the names to read 'u'Modeh Rebbi *Yehoshua* le'*Rebbi Eliezer*'.
(c) According to Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua - 'u'Modeh Rebbi Eliezer
le'Rebbi Yehoshua' refers, not to the Seifa of the Beraisa (to the case when
they are *not* able to save the Terumah wine be'Taharah), but to the Reisha,
when they *are*. The Chidush is when the inside of the vessel is Tahor, but
the outside is Tamei, to tell us that even in this case, Rebbi Eliezer
permits using such a vessel, and he does not decree that they may
inadvertently allow the wine to touch the back of the vessel and become
***** Perek Kol Sha'ah *****
(a) The statement 'Kol Sha'ah she'Mutar Le'echol, Ma'achil li'Vehemto' - is
indeed obvious. The Tana does not mention it for its intrinsic Chidush, but
for the inference, as will be explained in the Gemara.
(b) According to the Chachamim, it does not matter how one gets rid of this
Chametz, even if it is by breaking it into crumbs and throwing it to the
wind, or by casting it into the sea.
(c) The author of our Mishnah cannot be ...
1. ... Rebbi Yehudah - because according to him, there is the *fifth* hour,
when Chametz may not be eaten, yet one may feed it to one's animals.
(d) The author of our Mishnah must therefore be Raban Gamliel, who
differentiates between Chulin and Terumah. What the Tana is therefore saying
is 'Kol Sha'ah she'Mutar *Kohen* Le'echol, *Yisrael* Ma'achil li'Vehemto'.
2. ... Rebbi Meir - because, according to him, the Mishnah should have been
more brief. It should have written 'Kol Sha'ah she'Ochel, Ma'achil.
(a) If his animals leave over some of the Chametz, he will see it and
destroy it, which is not the case by beasts, who tend to hide what they
leave over. Beasts on the other hand, hide the Chametz, and, until he finds
it, he will transgress neither 'Bal Yera'eh' nor 'Bal Yimatzei', whereas
animals leave it in the open, and, should he fail to destroy it before
Pesach, he will transgress 'Bal Yera'eh' and 'Bal Yimatzei'.
(b) The Tana only mentions birds because he has mentioned animals and
beasts, not because of any inherent Chidush.
(a) The Tana informs us that one may sell Chametz to a gentile - to preclude
the opinion of Beis Shamai, who forbid doing so, unless he knows that the
gentile will definitely get rid of it before Pesach.
(b) According to Beis Shamai, one is obligated to ensure that one's Chametz
is destroyed before Pesach.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira forbids the sale of Kutach (a condiment that
contains bread) to a gentile within thirty days of Pesach (since the gentile
is unlikely to finish it before Pesach - like the opinion of Beis Shamai
(see Tosfos, DH Rebbi Yehudah, who establishes Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah
like Beis Hillel).
(a) 'u'Mutar be'Hana'ah' is speaking about Chametz which was scorched
*before* it became Asur. The Chidush is that one may even benefit from it
*after* the time of Isur (Note: See Rosh, Si'man 1, who nevertheless forbids
*eating* the scorched Chametz).
(b) 'Avar Zemano, Asur be'Hana'aso' - means even in the time when the
Chametz is only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan i.e. during the sixth hour (Refer to 7a,
1 a. and b.), it is Asur be'Hana'ah, and if someone betrothes a woman with
it, she is not betrothed, and is permitted to go and receive Kidushin from
(c) And the Chidush of 've'Lo Yasik Bo Tanur ve'Kirayim' - is that even
according to Rebbi Yehudah, in whose opinion, one is obligated to *burn* the
Chametz, one is not permitted to derive benefit from it whilst burning it
(see Gilyon ha'Shas).
(a) Chizkiyah learns from the Pasuk "Lo Ye'achel Chametz" - that Chametz is
Asur be'Hana'ah (because 'Ye'achel' incorporates an Isur Hana'ah).
(b) Rebbi Avahu holds that every Lashon of Achilah (even 'Lo Yochal', 'Lo
Sochal' and 'Lo Sochlu') also incorporates Isur Hana'ah).
(c) Rebbi Avahu learns from the Pasuk "Lo Sochlu Kol Neveilah, la'Ger Asher
bi'She'arecha Titenenah" - that since the Torah needs to permit Neveilah to
a Ger, "Lo Sochlu" must incorporate Hana'ah (though that is only according
to the opinion of Rebbi Meir, as we shall soon see).
(a) According to Rebbi Meir, one may also *sell* Neveilah to a Ger or *give*
it to a gentile - because, since the Torah writes "la'Ger Asher
bi'She'arecha *Titenenah va'Achalah, O Machor* le'Nochri" - in the middle
(rather tyhan "*Titenenah* la'Ger Asher bi'She'arech va'Achalah, *O Machor*
le'Nochri"), we read the Pasuk as if it would have written "la'Ger Asher
bi'She'arecha Titenenah (va'Achalah) O Machor, Titenenah (va'Achalah) O
(b) The Ger referred to in the Pasuk is a Ger Toshav - who remains a
gentile, but who undertakes not to serve idols.
(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah - the Torah is particular that one deals with
Neveilah exactly as it stipulates: i.e. by giving it to a Ger or selling it
to a gentile (and not vice-versa).
(b) Rebbi Meir learns from "*O* Machor le'Nochri" - that one should
preferably give Neveilah to a Ger than sell it to a gentile (but not to
preclude any of the four possibilities).
(c) Rebbi Yehudah considers that unnecessary. It is obvious, he argues,
that one should if possible, give Neveilah to a Ger, since one is obligated
to sustain him.
(a) Rebbi Avahu cannot learn from Rebbi Yehudah in the above Beraisa that
whenever the Torah writes "Lo Yochal", "Sochal" or "Sochlu", it includes an
Isur Hana'ah unless otherwise specified - because, according to Rebbi
Yehudah, who says that we need the details in the Pasuk to permit Hana'ah
(from which we can deduce that otherwise, it would be forbidden, as is the
case according to Rebbi Meir)? Perhaps "Lo Sochlu" does not incorporate an
Isur Hana'ah, and we need the details to instruct us to *give* Neveilah to a
Ger or to *sell* it to a gentile.
(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Avahu learn his principle from
Tereifah, from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "la'Kelev Tashlichun *Oso*" - 'Oso Ata
Mashlich la'Kelev, ve'I Ata Mashlich Kol Isurin she'ba'Torah'.
(c) Rebbi Meir learns from "Oso" - 'Oso Ata Mashlich la'Kelev, ve'I Ata
Mashlich Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah (to teach us that Chulin
she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah are Asur be'Hana'ah mi'd'Oraysa).
(d) According to Rebbi Yehudah, Chulin that were Shechted in the Azarah are
only Asur be'Hana'ah mi'de'Rabbanan.
(a) Had the Torah just written "la'Kelev Tashlichenu" (and not "Oso") we
would have just learnt from there that Hashem gives everyone his due reward,
because here, He is rewarding the dogs for not barking in Egypt when *He*
went round the Egyptian houses killing their first-born (even though they do
normally bark when the *Angel of Death* arrives on the scene).
(b) The Isur Achilah of Chulin that were Shechted in the Azarah - derives
from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Ki Yirchak Mimecha ha'Makom, ve'Zavachta
ve'Achalta" - that one may only Shecht Chulin when one is *far from the
Azarah*, but not when one is *inside it*; and in that Pasuk, there is no
La'av for eating them, which would incorporate Hana'ah, according to Rebbi
Avahu. That explains why Rebbi Meir needs "Oso" to forbid it.