ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 23
PESACHIM 23 - has been sponsored by a donation from Mr. Morris Smith of Yerushalayim
(a) The Mishnah in Eruvin permits using wine on behalf of a Nazir for an
Eruv Techumin, and Terumah on behalf of a Yisrael - because both a Nazir and
the owner of the Terumah are able to release their declaration through a
Beis-Din, in which case they will both be able to drink the wine.
(b) Rebbi Avahu explains the fact that a Yisrael is permitted to derive
benefit from Terumah (in spite of the Pasuk "ve'Chol Zar Lo *Yochal*
Kodesh") - because the Torah also writes "Terumaschem", to permit it
(c) And he explains the fact that a Nazir is permitted to derive benefit
from wine, in spite of the Pasuk in Naso "me'Chartzanim ve'Ad Zag Lo Yochel"
- because the Torah also writes "Nizro", to permit it be'Hana'ah.
(d) Rav Ashi Darshens "Gadel Pera Se'ar Rosho" - his hair is holy (i.e.
forbidden), but not the wine. The Gemara refutes this on the grounds that
the Pasuk does not write 'but not the wine'.
(a) 'Kotzer la'Shachas' - means that, in spite of the prohibition of
harvesting the crops before the Omer, it is permitted to cut them as long as
they are still grass (i.e. less than a third grown), because that is not
called 'harvesting'. 'u'Ma'achil li'Beheimah' - means that one is permitted
even to harvest the fully-grown crops for ones animals before the Omer.
(b) Rebbi Avahu explains the fact that Chadash is Mutar be'Hana'ah, in spite
of the Pasuk "ve'Lechem ve'Kali ve'Charmel Lo *Sochlu* ad Etzem ha'Yom
ha'Zeh" - because there too, the Torah writes "Ketzirchem" to permit Chadash
(c) Acording to Chizkiyah, "Terumaschem" and "Ketzirchem" mean 'your
Terumah' and 'your harvest' respectively. It is a manner of speech, and we
do not learn anything special from there.
(a) Although the Torah writes "Lachem" by Sheratzim, to permit Sheratzim
be'Hana'ah, it nevertheless also writes "ve'Sheketz *Yihyu* Lachem", to
teach us that they retain their status of Isur, and it is forbidden to set
out to trap them initially.
The Gemara does not ask on Rebbi Avahu why the Torah first prohibits
deriving benefit from certain foods by writing "Lo Sochlu" etc., and then
needs to write "Lachem" to permit it - because it has to write "Lo Sochlu",
to teach us the prohibition of eating them. And having written "Lo Sochlu"
(which incorporates an Isur Hana'ah, it then has no option but to write
"Lachem"). The Gemara does ask the question on Chizkiyah, since it began
with the option of writing "Lo Sochlu" (which would have taught us the Isur
Achilah without incorporating an Isur Hana'ah). Why then, asks the Gemara,
did it choose to write "Lo Ye'achel", creating the need to add "Lachem"?
(b) Chizkiyah's source for his contention that "*Lo Ye'achel*" incorporates
a prohibition to derive benefit - is the Pasuk by Sheratzim, which could
have written "Lo Sochel", to teach us that they are Asur ba'Achilah, and
Mutar be'Hana'ah. Why did it take the trouble to write "Lo Ye'achel" and
then "Lachem"? - if not to teach us that "Lo Ye'achel" always incorporates
an Isur Hana'ah.
The Rabbanan need an extra "Lecha" - to teach us that both yeast and Chametz
are included in Bal Yera'ah and Bal Yimatzei. Nor would we have known one
from the other, because yeast, on the one hand, is a stronger Chimutz than
Chametz (since it makes others Chametz, too). and on the other hand, Chametz
is edible, whereas yeast is not.
(a) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learns from the Pasuk "Ye'aseh le'Chol Melachah" -
that Chelev is Mutar be'Hana'ah for a Hedyot (an ordinary person) just like
it is permitted for Hashem (e.g. to smear skins of Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis).
(b) We would otherwise have thought that, since it is Asur to eat, it is
also Asur be'Hana'ah - unlike Hekdesh, which is Mutar to eat (Achilas
Mizbei'ach), and which is therefore permitted for Bedek ha'Bayis to derive
benefit from it.
(c) Rebbi Akiva learns from "Ye'aseh le'Chol Melachah" - that Chelev of
Neveilah is not included in the Din of Neveilah, and is Tahor from Tum'as
Neveilah. Consequently, it may be used without problems to rub on skins of
Kodshim. But it is obvious to him that Chelev is Mutar be'Hana'ah.
(d) The Gemara initially explained that Rebbi Yossi Hagelili holds like
Rebbi Avahu - that "Lo Sochlu" incorporates an Isur Hana'ah, in which case,
he requires "le'Chol Melachah" to permit Hana'ah; whereas Rebbi Akiva holds
like Chizkiyah - that "Lo Sochlu" is restricted to an Isur Achilah, in which
case, no Pasuk is required to permit Hana'ah.
(a) The Gemara concludes that, in fact, even Rebbi Akiva agrees that "Lo
Sochlu" etc. incorporates the prohibition to derive benefit - nevertheless,
he does not require a Pasuk to permit Chelev be'Hana'ah, because he holds
that, when the Torah permitted Neveilah, Chelev and Gid ha'Nasheh were
included in that Heter.
(b) According to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili - when the Torah permitted Neveilah,
only the flesh was included in that Heter, but not Chelev and Gid ha'Nasheh,
since they do not bear the title 'Neveilah'.
(c) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili may well permit Gid ha'Nasheh be'Hana'ah from a Kal
va'Chomer from Chelev: if Chelev, which carries the penalty of Kares, is
permitted, how much more so Gid ha'Nasheh, which is only an ordinary La'av.
(d) Rebbi Shimon who forbids Gid ha'Nasheh be'Hana'ah, rejects the Kal
va'Chomer, on the grounds that Gid ha'Nasheh has a Chumra over Chelev -
inasmuch as even the Gid ha'Nasheh of a Chayah is forbidden; whereas the
Chelev of a Chayah is permitted. Rebbi Yossi will counter that by saying
that we are talking about a Beheimah, not a Chayah, and by a Beheimah, the
Kal va'Chomer is perfectly valid, since Chelev is definitely more stringent
than Gid ha'Nasheh.
(a) The only practical ramifications of the Machlokes between Chizkiyah and
Rebbi Avahu is Chulin that were Shechted in the Azarah, which are Asur
be'Hana'ah mi'd'Oraysa according to Chizkiyah, but only mi'de'Rabbanan,
according to Rebbi Avahu.
(b) According to Chizkiyah, we already know the Isur Hana'ah by Chametz and
Shor ha'Niskal from the Lashon of "Lo Ye'achel". Consequently, he learns
from "la'Kelev Tashlichun *Oso*" that one may not derive benefit from Chulin
that were Shechted in the Azarah. Whereas Rebbi Avahu learns the Isur
Hana'ah by Chametz and Shor ha'Niskal from "la'Kelev Tashlichun *Oso*".
Consequently, he has no Pasuk to forbid Chulin that were Shechted in the
Azarah, be'Hana'ah - so the Isur Hana'ah that pertains to them can only be
mi'de'Rabbanan. Note: this entire explanation is confined to the opinion of
Rebbi Yehudah. See Sugya 21b. and 22a.
(a) 'All Isurin in the Torah' incorporates Chametz on Pesach and an ox that
is due to be stoned.
(b) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi does not learn the Isur Hana'ah by all Isurin
from "Lo Ye'achel" - because, according to him, "Lo Ye'achel" implies an
Isur Achilah, but not an Isur Hana'ah.
(c) Neither does he learn it from "Lo Sochlu Kol Neveilah" (like Rebbi Meir)
- because he holds like Rebbi Yehudah.
(d) Nor does he learn it from "la'Kelev Tashlichun *Oso*" (like Rebbi
Yehudah) - because he uses it to infer that Chulin that were Shechted in the
Azarah are forbidden (which in his opinion, are d'Oraysa).
(a) The simple explanation of "Kol Chatas Asher Yuva mi'Damah ... ba'Esh
Tisaref" - is that if the blood of a regular Chatas (which is normally
sprinkled 'outside' in the Azarah, is brought *inside* (into the Heichal),
must be burnt.
From "ba'Kodesh ba'Esh Tisaref" - Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi learns that only
Kodesh must be burned, but not all other Isurin in the Torah.
(b) "ve'Hineh Soraf" refers to the Chatas of Nachshon (the first of the
Princes to bring the inaugural sacrifices on Rosh Chodesh Nisan, after the
Mishkan was completed. Moshe found that it had been burnt, and he asked
Elazar and Isamar why that was so, seeing as the blood had not been brought
into the Heichal, implying that, if it had, he would have had no problem
with its being burned.
(c) So Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi learns from "ba'Esh Tisaref" (which is not
now needed for itself) - to teach us that all Isurin in the Torah are Asur
(d) Even though "ba'Esh Tisaref" is referring to the prohibition of eating
Kodshim - we apply the principle of 'Im Eino Inyan' ... A word or a phrase
in the Torah that is not needed in the context where it appears, is used in
another context where it is needed.