(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 30



(a) Rebbi Shimon only permits Chametz after Pesach be'Hana'ah mi'd'Oraysa - but he agrees that it is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan.

(b) The Isur de'Rabbanan only applies however, to Chametz be'En (actual Chametz) - but not to a mixture.

(c) Nor does it make any difference whether the Chametz fell in before Pesach, on Pesach or after Pesach - in all cases, Rebbi Shimon permits a mixture of Chametz after Pesach.

(d) According to Rava, who rules on Pesach, like Rav and Rebbi Yochanan - a Mashehu of Chametz is Asur on Pesach, even by Min be'she'Eino Mino, whereas by other kinds, Min be'she'Eino Mino is Batel be'Shishim.

(a) Rav decrees that, if one were to be permitted to keep pots over Pesach to use with different kinds of foods than those with which they were used before - they might come to use them even with the same kinds of foods, which, according to him, is intrtinsically forbidden.

(b) The Halachah is not like Rav because - 1. Rav holds like Rebbi Yehudah , who forbids Chametz after Pesach be'Hana'ah, whereas we rule like Rebbi Shimon, who permits it; and 2. because Rav holds 'Nosen Ta'am li'Fegam (food that is absorbed in the walls of the pot, and which spoil the taste of other foods, when they are exuded), Asur', whereas we hold 'Nosen Ta'am li'Fegam Mutar'.

(c) Shmuel warned the potters of Sura that, unless they lowered their prices, he would rule publicly like Rebbi Shimon, permitting the use of pots after Pesach.

(d) When that incident took place, Shmuel happened to be in Sura, Rav's town. Consequently, he did not have the authority to rule like Rebbi Shimon (since Rav followed the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah) under normal circumstances - nor is it clear whether he had the authority to do so now; maybe he was only threatening them.

(a) In the case of the oven which they had smeared with fat - Rava bar Ahila'i ruled that, not only was it forbidden to bake bread in that oven again, ever, but that, any bread that was baked there, was forbidden. The reason that he was so strict is because he was afraid that one may come to eat it with Kutach (a milk condiment).

(b) The Beraisa supports Rava bar Ahila'i's initial statement, forbidding smearing an oven with fat, but then adds that once the oven has been re- heated, any bread that is subsequently baked, is permitted. Rava bar Ahila'i opinion is duly refuted, since he has no answer to that.




(a) The reason that even re-heating will not help by earthenware - is because even after they have been heated, they do *not* exude all their contents, whereas metal vessels *do*.

(b) Even if the Beraisa is speaking about an earthenware oven, Kashering might still be permitted - because the method of heating an oven is from the *inside*, in which case, the intense, concentrated heat *does* succeed in removing everything that is absorbed in its walls (a pot, on the other hand, is generally heated from the *outside*).

(c) Chazal did not permit heating earthenware pots in this way - because they were afraid that, for fear that the pot (which is not made to withstand so much heat) might crack from the heat, he will not do it properly.

(d) A Buchya is a vessel made of tiles in which one bakes or fries bread. *It*, unlike earthenware vessels, *can* be Kashered by heating it from the inside.

(a) Rav Ashi used to buy new knives for Pesach - because he was a wealthy man. But someone who cannot afford to do so, is permitted to Kasher his knives.

(b) According to Rav Ashi, a knife is Kashered by heating the blade in fire, protecting the handle by cementing it. Afterwards, the handle has to be Kashered in boiling water (known as Hag'alah).

(c) le'Halachah, knives only require Hag'alah in boiling water in a K'li Rishon.

(a) Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua instructed them to Kasher a wooden ladle in the same way as one Kashers a knife: by means of Hag'alah.

(b) We learn from him that 'ke'Bol'o Kach Polto'.

(c) One would Kasher a spoon that was used exclusively in a K'li Sheni - in boiling water in a K'li Sheni.

(a) Green-clay, lead-plated vessels cannot be Kashered - because they constantly exude what they have absorbed even through the plating.

(b) The Gemara concludes that the same applies to black-clay and white-clay ones.

(c) If the vessels had cracks in them - the Gemara took for granted that they cannot be Kashered in any case.

(d) The Torah prescribes Kashering in fire or water - by wooden or by metal vessels.

(a) The reason that Mereimar permitted all kinds of clay vessels which were used for Yayin Nesech (i.e. S'tam Yeinam) to be Kashered - is not because Yayin Nesech is only mi'de'Rabbanan (because in most cases, the Rabbanan instituted their decrees similar to the Isurim d'Oraysa).

(b) The real reason is because they are only used with cold, and not with hot.

(a) A yeast-dish is more stringent than other vessels - because the yeast, which due to its sour properties, is exceptionally potent, is sometimes left in the dish overnight.

(b) Rav Ashi compares a dish which is used for vinegar or any other acidic liquids to a yeast-dish.

(c) We might have thought that a kneading-trough does not need to be Kashered - because, due to its spaciousness, it gets a lot of air, for which reason it may well not absorb the Chametz.

(a) If a non-Jew lent a Jew money against a security of Chametz, the Chametz is permitted after Pesach - provided that 1. the Chametz deposit was in the non-Jew's house throughout the duration of Pesach, 2. the Jew did not repay the loan and 3. it was stipulated that the non-Jew would acquire the Chametz retroactively.

(b) In the Seifa too, when a non-Jew lent a Jew money against a security of Chametz, the Chametz is permitted after Pesach - it speaks when the same three conditions were met (see Tosfos Yom-Tov).

(a) When Abaye says that a creditor claims retroactively - he means that any property that is Meshubad (mortgaged) against the loan will become the creditor's retroactively, should the debtor fail to pay.

(b) According to Rava - the mortgaged property only becomes the creditor's from the moment that he claims it.

(c) This does not mean that if the borrower sells the mortgaged property or is Makdish it, Rava will hold that the creditor cannot claim it - since, if that were the case, what is the point of mortgaging the property?

(d) What it *does* mean is that, according to him - if the *creditor* sells the property or is Makdish it, the transaction is invalid.

Next daf


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