(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 52

PESACHIM 52 has been dedicated by Mr. Avi Berger of Queens, N.Y. in memory of his parents, Pinchas ben Reb Avraham Yitzchak, and Leah bas Michal Mordechai



(a) Rav Yosef placed Rav Nasan bar Asya in Cherem - because he went on the second day of Shavuos, from the Yeshivah to Pumbedisa (which was beyond the Techum Shabbos).

(b) Abaye asked Rav Yosef why he did not give him Malkos.

(c) Rav Yosef proved that Cherem is more stringent than Malkos - from the fact that in Eretz Yisrael (where they were more particular about Kavod Torah), they would give a Torah-student lashes rather than place him in Cherem (Most other Rishonim explain the Gemara differently - see Rabeinu Chananel).

(d) According to the second Lashon, Rav Yosef gave Rav Nasan bar Asya Malkos, despite Rav and Shmuel's ruling, that someone who violated the second day Yom-Tov was to be placed in Cherem, rather than to receive lashes - because he was a Torah-student.

(a) 'A species of fruit that is finished' (with regard to Shemitah) means that there are no more fruits of that species in any of the fields of that region of Eretz Yisrael or Ever ha'Yarden for the wild animals to eat.

(b) When Rebbi Yehudah says 'You can also go and fetch some', he seems to mean that, since the town from which the fruit came is located in a region where there *are* still some of that species available in the fields, it is permitted even in the town where he is now, even though there are *not*.

(c) But does Rebbi Yehudah not hold of the principle 'Nosnin Alav ... ve'Chumrei ha'Makom she'Halach Lesham' ... ?

(a) After we amend the Mishnah to read 'O mi'Makom she'Lo Kalu le'Makom she'Lo Kalu, ve'Shama she'Kalu bi'Mekomo' - the Tana Kama holds that since, when all's said and done, the fruit has now finished in the town from which he came, it is forbidden to deviate from the Minhag of his town. But Rebbi Yehudah maintains that, since, when he left his town, the fruit was permitted, he can say to them 'Seeing as I took it from your town when there was still some left in the fields, to a town where there are still some in the fields, it is permitted.

(b) According to this however, Rebbi Yehudah comes to be lenient, whereas Rebbi Elazar clearly said that he comes to be strict. Consequently, we change the Tana Kama's words to read not 'Chayav Leva'er', but 'Eino Chayav Leva'er' (for the reason that we gave in Rebbi Yehudah a moment ago). And when Rebbi Yehudah says 'Tzei ve'Havei Lecha Af Ata'!, he is not making a statement, but issuing a challenge, as if to say 'See if you can find fruit there' (and since you cannot, because it has now finished, the fruit is forbidden).

(c) Abaye re-establishes the Mishnah by someone who brought fruit from a place where they have *not* finished to a place where they *have*, and he then takes them back to find that they have still not finished. - The Tana Kama permits the fruit on the grounds that it came from a place where that species had not yet finished and it was still not finished; whereas Rebbi Yehudah holds that, since he now brought them from a place where the species has finished, the fruit is forbidden.

(d) The Gemara rejects this explanation - because 'since when does passing through a place forbid the fruit'? It is either the place where thr fruit grew or the place where the person with the fruit is now, which renders it forbidden.

(a) If three different species are picked together in a barrel. Rebbi Eliezer holds that the moment one of the species is finished, the entire barrel is forbidden - Rebbi Yehoshua says that one may continue to eat from the barrel as long as any of the species is still to be found in the fields; whereas, according to Raban Gamliel as each species becomes unavailable in the fields, it becomes forbidden, irrespective of the other kinds in the barrel.

(b) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah (who forbids the barrel only when all the species have finished, but not before) follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua, and Rebbi Yehudah (who says 'You go and find that species in the fields'!), that of Raban Gamliel.

(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa, who permits eating dates in Yehudah, even 'Al Shel Bein ha'Shitzin' - means to say that even if the remaining dates are only to be found at the foot of the date-palms among the thorns where the wild animals cannot get to them, the fruit that remains in the house is nevertheless permitted; whereas Raban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that we disregard the dates among the thorns; according to him, it is only as long as there are dates (even loose ones) still remaining among the palm-leaves (where the wild animals can get to them) that one is permitted to eat the dates in the house.

(b) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah (who says that it is only when the dates are *completely* finished in the fields that those in the house are forbidden - holds like the Tana Kama of the Beraisa; whereas Rebbi Yehudah (who tells the man 'You go and fetch some dates from the base of the palms!' And since you cannot get to those that are lodged among the thorns, we disregard them') - holds like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel.




1. Chazal divided Eretz Yisrael into three independent regions with regard to 'Kalah le'Chayah min ha'Sadeh': Yehudah, Ever ha'Yarden and the Galil. The moment any particular species has finished from the fields in one of the areas, fixes the Z'man ha'Bi'ur for that area.
2. The three areas into which each of these three was divided - was also due to the fact that the fruit would terminate in the one before the other. Nevertheless, this division had no Halachic significance (see Tosfos DH 'Ad').
(b) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'li'Vehemtecha, ve'la'Chayah" - that as long as any particular species remains in the fields, one is still permitted to retain that species in the house to feed the animals (and of course, oneself).

(c) Chazal knew to divide Eretz Yisrael specifically into the three aforementioned areas - because they had a tradition that the wild animals of Yehudah, Ever ha'Yarden and the Galil do not feed from each other's areas (this, in turn, we derive from the word "ve'li'Vehemtecha ve'la'Chayah Asher *be'Artzecha*").

(a) The Mitzvah of Bi'ur Shevi'is constitutes placing the fruit in a place where the animals and the wild beasts can trample on it, and declaring it Hefker (see Tosfos DH 'Misba'arin').

(b) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar learns from the extra 'Chaf' in "be'Artzecha" (or from "*Asher* be'Artzecha") - that once the Z'man ha'Bi'ur arrives, the fruit must be destroyed (i.e. declared Hefker) in Eretz Yisrael, to the extent that, if it was taken outside Eretz Yisrael, it must be returned.

(c) According to the Rabbanan, the fruit may be destroyed wherever it is.

(a) Rav Safra accepted the opinion of Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Ika - because he took great care to record exactly what his Rebbe had said - like Rachbah of Pumbedisa.

(b) "Ami be'Atzo Yish'al, u'Maklo Yagid Lo" - is a hint that the Halachah is like the lenient opinion ('Kol ha'Meikal Lo, Yagid Lo').

(c) Rachbah was not certain whether he heard the ruling from Rav Yehudah or from Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'a, who lived in the same generation - so he quoted both opinions. It appears that, since Rachbah was in doubt, he used the word 'Rabbi' (with a Kamatz), instead of Rebbi; some (such as Rabeinu Chananel), added an 'Alef', to make this point clear).

(a) We learn from "le'Ochlah" - 'le'Ochlah, ve'Lo le'Hefsed', that it forbidden to spoil Shemitah-produce.

(b) The Gemara tries to justify Rebbi Ila'i by differentiating between fully-ripe fruit (which is forbidden) and fruit that is not yet fully ripe (which is permitted).

(c) Rav Nachman quoting Rabah bar Avuha said that the 'Mascheli' of Orlah (a protective covering of the dates [Rashi in Berachos] which appears on the fruit when it is not yet ripe, and falls off when it becomes ripe) are subject to Orlah, because they protect the fruit. In any event, he refers to the unripe fruit as a 'P'ri', thereby refuting the previous answer.

(d) The Gemara attempts to resolve the problem by establishing Rav Nachman like Rebbi Yossi - who includes 'Semader' (the initial stages of a grape, when the fruit is far from ripe) in the Din of Orlah. Rebbi Ila'i, who cut down the date-palm, holds like the Rabbanan, who disagree with Rebbi Yossi. According to them, an unripe fruit is not considered a fruit.

(a) The Gemara goes on to quote the opening words of the Tana 'Kol ha'Ilanos, mi'she'Yotzi'u' (meaning, when the leaves grow) in Nisan. Already then, the fruit is called a P'ri, leaving us with a Kashya on Rebbi Ila'i.

(b) The Gemara quotes Rav Asi's statement, in order to dispense with the Kashya 'perhaps the author of that Mishnah is Rebbi Yossi, and we have already explained that Rebbi Ilai holds like the Rabbanan? However, that cannot be. Why not? Because it is the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yossi who consider Boser (a later stage in the grape's development than Semader) the first stage of grape. Consequently, if, as Rav Asi says, explaining the Mishnah which considers Giru'a a fruit (regarding Bi'ur) 'Hu Boser, Hu Giru'a, Hu (ke')Pul ha'Lavan' - then the author of the Mishnah must be, not Rebbi Yossi, but the Rabbanan.

(c) The tree that Rebbi Ila'i cut down was a male palm, the Gemara finally answers. Consequently, the dates that grew on it would never ripen, and were therefore not subject to the Dinim of Shemitah.

Next daf


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