(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 43



(a) Kings would use Shemen ha'Mor to remove premature hair from their young daughters - just like the women used for six months in Shushan, before appearing before Achashveirosh.

(b) The better-known explanation of Shemen ha'Mor - is oil made from olives that have grown less then a third of their full growth.

(c) It would also improve the complexion of the skin.

(a) Having said 'Kol she'Hu mi'Min Dagan', the Tana nevertheless found it necessary to list the various mixtures in our Mishnah - in order that people should become aquainted with their names, to save them from sinning.

(b) Like that story of that Israeli, who once arrived in Bavel on Pesach with his own meat. by the (presumably non-Jewish) inn where he was staying, he asked them for a condiment with which to eat his meat, and, when he heard them mention 'Kutach', he knew that it was not for him.

(a) The first four cases listed in our Mishnah comprise Ta'aroves Chametz, the last three, Chametz Nokshah.

(b) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, the author of our Mishnah, which forbids the deriving of benefit from Chametz Nokshah - is Rebbi Meir (who holds 'Si'ur Yisaref').

(c) 'Si'ur Yisaref' refers to that of Rebbi Meir according to Rebbi Meir, and that of Rebbi Yehudah according to Rebbi Yehudah; 've'Nosno le'Kalbo' - refers to the Si'ur of Rebbi Yehudah (Panav Machsifin, which is Chametz Nokshah) according to Rebbi Meir.

(d) The author of the third statement ('ve'ha'Ochlo be'Arba'im') - is Rebbi Meir.

(a) 'Chametz Nokshah' is dough for example, that is not fit to eat, because it has *begun* to rise, but has not yet risen fully. Nor is it fit to make other doughs rise, like yeast. It is a pure semi-Chametz, that is neither edible nor fit to be Machmitz other doughs.

(b) We know that someone who eats Ta'aroves Chametz also transgresses a La'av - according to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav - because he maintains that this is a Kal va'Chomer from Chametz Nokshah (which is *not* real Chametz, whereas Ta'aroves Chametz *is*).

(c) According to Rav Nachman - if Rebbi Eliezer holds that there is a La'av on eating Ta'aroves Chametz (which is *not* pure Chametz), then Kal va'Chomer Chametz Nukshah (which *is*).

(d) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav disagrees with Rav Nachman: according to him, Rebbi Eliezer may well hold that there is a La'av by Ta'aroves Chametz, but that does not mean that there is also a La'av by Chametz Nokshah? Whereas according to Rav Nachman, Rebbi Meir may well hold of a La'av by Chametz Nokshah, but who says that he also holds of one by Ta'aroves Chametz?

(a) The Beraisa reads - "Kol Machmetzes Lo Sochelu", 'Lerabos Kutach ha'Bavli, ve'Shechar ha'Madi' ... and goes on to preclude them from Kares. This Beraisa serves as a proof for Rav Yehudah, since it is Rebbi Eliezer who maintains that Ta'aroves Chametz carries with it a La'av, and not Chametz Nokshah, which is preciesely what the Beraisa says.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer learns from the Pasuk "Ki Kol Ochel *Machmetzes* ve'Nichresah" - that even dough that became Chametz through external means (e.g. through dried wine-dregs) is included in the Kares of eating Chametz.

(c) In fact, the Gemara concludes, it is not from the Pasuk "Kol *Machmetzes* Lo Sochelu" that Rebbi Eliezer learns the previous Derashah (which would justify the Kashya - then why not learn from "Ki Kol Ochel *Machmetzes* ve'Nichresah" that Chametz which became Chametz through an external agent should be included in Kares) - but from the superfluous word "*Kol* Machmetzes".

(d) Rebbi Eliezer learns from the word "Ki *Kol* Ochel Machmetzes ve'Nichresah" - that women are also included in the Kares of eating Chametz..




(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Naso "Ish O Ishah Ki Ya'asu mi'Kol Chat'os ha'Adam" ... - that women are included in all of the Torah's punishments.

(b) We nevertheless need the Derashah of "*Kol* Machmetzes Lo Sochelu" to include women - because the Torah writes "Lo Sochal Alav Chametz, Shiv'as Yamim Tochal Alav Matzos", which compares not eating Chametz to eating Matzah; and since women are initially Patur from eating Matzah (which is a time-related Mitzvah), they should also be Patur from the La'av of eating Chametz - were it not for the word "Kol" which includes them.

(c) Now however, that women are included in the La'av of not eating Chametz, we use the Hekesh of Achilas Matzah to not eating Chametz to teach us that, just as they are Chayav in the latter, so too, are they Chayav in the former.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer prefers to include *women* in the Kares of eating Chametz (from "Ki *Kol* Ochel Chametz ve'Nichresah") rather than *Ta'aroves Chametz* (for men) - because the Pasuk is speaking about *eaters* and not *food*, so it makes more sense to include eaters rather than another type of food.

(b) The Pasuk of "Ki *Kol* Ochel Chelev ve'Nichresah" is different, since, even though it too, is speaking about eaters (and not food) there are no eaters there that need to be included, in which case we can include another type of food (the Chelev of blemished animals).

(a) The Rabbanan, who do not Darshen "Kol", learn that women are included in the Mitzvah of Matzah on Pesach and the La'av of eating Chametz - from "Ki Kol" (from which they also Darshen).

(b) The suggestion that Rebbi Eliezer does not Darshen "Ki Kol" is unacceptable - since with regard to the La'av of burning yeast on the Mizbei'ach, he includes (in a Beraisa) half a k'Zayis from "Kol" and Ta'aroves from "Ki Kol".

(c) See b.

(d) In fact, the Gemara has no answer to the Kashya raised in b. (i.e. let Rebbi Eliezer learn women from "Kol", and Ta'aroves Chametz from "Ki"?)

(a) When Rebbi Avahu quoting Rebbi Yochanan, says that by most Isurim, the Heter does not combine with the Isur - he means to say that if one eats less than a Shiur of Isur complementing the Shiur with food that is Heter, he will not be Chayav.

(b) The Heter combines with the Isur by the Lav of drinking wine by a Nazir - because of the superfluous word in Naso "Mishras".

(c) From Rashi here it appears that there is no difference whether the two are eaten separately, or whether the wine, shall we say, is absorbed in the bread. That too, is called 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur', though in reality, this ought to fall under the category of 'Ta'am ke'Ikar' - see Daf 44b 5a - see also Rashi there DH 'mi'Pas u'mi Yayin').

(d) Ze'iri, who adds Se'or to the list of Heter Mitztaref le'Isur - holds like Rebbi Eliezer, who includes half a Shiur by Se'or from "Kol" (Ze'iri teaches us that Rebbi Eliezer is only Mechayev Malkos for burning half a k'Zayis of yeast on the Mizbei'ach, if he also burns half a k'Zayis of yeast together with it to complement the Shiur (see Daf, 44 1b.), but not if he burns it on its own.

Next daf


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