ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 53
1. The 'Dali'os she'be'Avel' - are the grapes on the trellises of Aveil
Keramim, which were the last to ripen, and which therefore served as the
gauge for 'Kalu min ha'Sadeh le'Chayah'. Sometimes there are late grapes
elsewhere which ripen after those of Avel. In that case, one may still rely
(b) Rav Bibi quoting Rebbi Yochanan switches round the last two cases in the
latter Beraisa. He learns 'dates until Chanukah and dried figs until Purim'.
2. The last olives means - when the poor go out to the fields to search for
olives and are unable to find a quarter of a Kav of edible olives anywhere
on the trees.
3. Rebbi Yehudah says about Pagei Beis-Hini - that they were not mentioned
in this regard at all, only with regard to Ma'aser, as the Beraisa states
'Pagei Beis-Hini ... Chayavin be'Ma'aser'.
4. We already learned in the first Beraisa, that if there are later fruits,
that one may rely on them for Bi'ur. Consequently, the latter Beraisa is
giving us the dates of the late fruit.
1. Si'man le'Harim, Milin - means that the gall-nut tree grows well in the
mountains, whereas no other tree does (see Ya'avetz). That explains why
mountain-fruit is not subject to Bikurim.
(b) We need to know the definition of ...
2. Siman la'Amakim, Dekalim - means that the date-palm grows well in the
3. Si'man li'Nechalim, Kanim - means that canes (or reeds) grow well in a
4. Si'man li'Shefalah, Shikmah - means that the Shikmah-tree (a tree that
does not grow fruit) grows well in the lowlands.
1. & 2. ... a mountain and a valley - because, as the Mishnah writes in
Bikurim, one does not bring Bikurim from the date-palms that grow in the
mountains, nor from any fruits (other than dates) that grow in the valley.
3. ... a wadi - for the Mitzvah of Eglah Arufah, which had to have its neck
broken in a wadi (of virgin soil).
4. ... a plain - so that if someone specifies that he will sell his friend a
plain, that *that* is what the purchaser receives. In fact, the Gemara
concludes, this last answer could apply to the other three cases, too.
(a) Some places have the Minhag not to sell small animals (such as sheep and
goats) to non-Jews - because they decree small animals because of large
(b) It is forbidden to sell them large animals in any case - because one
might come to sell or to hire them animals as Shabbos is entering, and
violate Shabbos in the process.
(c) The Tana Kama does not differentiate between fully-grown, un-blemished
horses, shall we say, and horses that are too young to work, or that cannot
work due to a wound.
(d) Ben Beseira permit selling them a horse - because horses are used mainly
to transport people, and there is no Isur d'Oraysa even for one *person* to
carry another, since 'Chai Nosei es Atzmo'. Consequently, there is no Isur
of "Behemtecha" either.
(a) The reason for the Minhag not to eat roasted meat at the Seder - is
because it looks as if one is designating the Pesach to eat outside the Beis
(b) This Isur applies even to designating meat from an animal that has
already been Shechted.
(c) This prohibition does not however, apply to designating wheat for Pesach
- because this has no connection with Kodshim, and can only be understood
for what it is: namely, 'wheat that is guarded (from becoming Chametz) for
Pesach'. Though we might have thought otherwise. We might have thought that
he means to designate the wheat to sell and to buy with the proceeds, a
(a) Todos from Rome instituted the custom to eat whole roasted kid-goats at
the Seder (prepared in the same way as the Korban Pesach was - which will be
described in Perek Keitzad Tzolin).
(b) The Chachamim sent him a message that if he hadn't been Todos, they
would have placed him in Cherem, for all but feeding his fellow-Jews Kodshim
outside the Beis-Hamikdash.
(c) From the above episode, asks the Gemara, it appears that it is only a
kid-goat that is roasted whole (and known as 'Mekulas') that is forbidden;
so how can Rav forbid *all* roasted meat?
(d) A *Ge'di Mekulas*, answers the Gemara, is forbidden whether one
specifically designates it for Pesach or not, whereas Rav, who forbids *any
animal*, means that it is forbidden to designate it for Pesach.
(a) 'Rebbi Shimon Poter, she'Lo Hisnadev ke'Derech ha'Misnadvin' - is
referring to someone who undertakes to donate a Minchah of barley- flour, in
which case Rebbi Meir obligates him to bring one of wheat (since all regular
Menachos consist of wheat), and a person is bound by his *opening words*,
which contain all that he initially means to say (so since he said '*Harei
Alai Minchah* min ha'Se'orim' he has to bring a regular Minchah - from
wheat). Rebbi Shimon disagrees; according to him, since he added 'min
ha'Se'rorim', he did not undertake to bring a Minchah like everyone else
does and he is Patur, because a person is bound by *all his words*. He
obviously thought that one *can* bring a Minchah from barley, and in
reality, one *cannot*.
(b) According to Rebbi Shimon, why was Todos taken to task for 'all but
feeding his fellow-Jews Kodshim outside the Beis Hamikdash'? First of all,
he did not even declare the animal Hekdesh, and, even if he had, according
to Rebbi Shimon, who takes the words of the sanctifier at surface value, his
declaration would have been meaningless, since nowadays, there is no such
thing as a Korban Pesach?
(c) Rebbi Shimon, who holds 'she'Lo Hisnadev ke'Derech ha'Misnadvim', also
has to come on to the Sevara of 'Af bi'Gemar Devarav Adam Nitfas' (that we
take into account *all* of the person's words - even his concluding ones -
like Rebbi Yossi in Temurah, who disagrees with Rebbi Meir). Now the Gemara
thought that, since Rebbi Shimon holds like Rebbi Yossi (by 'Af bi'Gemar
Devarav Adam Nitfas'), does it not follow that Rebbi Yossi holds like Rebbi
Shimon (by the Sevara of 'she'Lo Hisnadev ke'Derech ha'Misnadvim'?). If that
is so, asks the Gemara, one cannot establish the Chachamim in the Beraisa of
Todos like Rebbi Yossi, any more than Rebbi Shimon.
(d) 'No!' answers the Gemara. Rebbi Shimon holds like Rebbi Yossi (since
there is no other way of explaining his words. But Rebbi Yossi does not hold
like Rebbi Shimon (regarding 'she'Lo Hisnadev ke'Derech ha'Misnadvim')-
since there is no indicate that. Consequently, we remain with the Gemara's
initial statement, that the Chachamim of Todos follow the opinion of Rebbi
(a) The Gemara asks whether Todos from Rome was a great man (a scholar) or a
bully - there is no Halachic difference between the two; it is just a matter
of whether the Chachamim (who sent to him 'If you would not be Todos, we
would place you in Cherem') desisted from doing so out of deference to his
greatness, or whether it was because they were afraid of him (though one
would then need to explain why the Mitzvah of "Lo Saguru Mipnei Ish" should
not apply. Perhaps "Lo Saguru" ... only applies to withholding an obligatory
ruling [such as by money-matters, where someone else's money is at stake,
but not to matters such as placing in Cherem, which is not obligatory - at
least not when it is not a matter of Kavod ha'Torah).
(b) The Gemara proves from the fact that Todos explained Chananyah, Mishael
and Azaryah's motive for allowing themselves to be thrown into furnace. They
did so, he explained, because they Darshened a Kal va'Chomer from the frogs
in Egypt, who are *not commanded* to sanctify G-d's Name, and yet some of
whom jumped into fires, risking their lives to carry out the will of Hashem,
who had said "u've'Sanurecha". So they themselves, they reckoned, who *are*,
are certainly obligated to do so. Clearly then, Todos was a learned man, and
it must have been in deference to his greatness that they desisted from
placing him in Cherem.
(c) From the Pasuk "Ki be'Tzel ha'Chochmah be'Tzel ha'Kesef" we Darshen that
anyone who helps Talmidei-Chamamim to set up a business by supplying them
with goods to sell, will sit together with the Talmid-Chacham whom he helped
in Olam ha'Ba. And this, according to Rebbi Yochanan, is what Todos from
Rome used to do.
(a) Some have the Minhag on the eve of Kol Nidrei, to kindle lights in all
the rooms, in honor of Yom Kipur. They are not perturbed by the fact that
perhaps, as a result, he will see his wife and fancy her (bear in mind that
marital relations is forbidden on this holy night). This is because, in
their opinion, the opposite effect will be achieved: namely, that due to the
prohibition of marital relations by the light of a lamp, he will be more
likely to desist. Others claim that, to the contrary, it is the first
suspicion that one must fear most (namely, that he will see his wife and
(b) Besides lighting in the Batei Kenesiyos and the Batei Medrashos - one
also lights in the dark streets and beside the beds of the sick.
(c) Rava applies the Pasuk "ve'Amech Kulam Tzdikim, Le'olam Yirshu Aretz" -
to our very Mishnah:ý Even though some *do* light lights and some *don't*,
both are righteous since they are both acting for the sake of Hashem ('Zeh
va'Zeh, Divrei Elokim Chayim').
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel says that the Berachah of 'Borei Me'orei ha'Esh'
is confined to Motza'ei Shabbos - because that is when it was first created
(as we shall see later).
(b) Ula give Rabah bar bar Chanah a dirty look - because he thought
(erroneously as it transpired) that Rebbi Aba, who quoted Shmuel's previous
statement in the name of Rebbi Yochanan, had heard that from Rabah bar bar
Chanah (as indeed, some just quoted him as having said), a fact which he
rejected (because, as we shall see, he disagreed with the actual statement).
(c) Rebbi Yochanan would not have said such a thing - because of the
Beraisa, which Rabah subsequently cites, which adds Yom Kipur to the
(d) The reason that one recites the Berachah over light on Motza'ei Yom
Kipur - is because (unlike other Yamim-Tovim) it was forbidden to kindle
lights during the entire day, and it is has only just become permitted once
(a) Rebbi Yochanan commented (on Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, who permitted
kindling a light on Kol Nidrei night when it fell on Shabbos, even to those
who did not do so on other years) - that the Chachamim disagreed, and that
they did not differentiate between the two.
(b) With *that* statement - Ula agreed.
(c) Rav Yosef applied the Pasuk in Mishlei ...
1. ... "Mayim Amukim Eitzah be'Lev Ish" - to Ula, who gave Rabah bar bar
Chanah a dirty look, but did not say anything.
2. ... "ve'Ish Tevunah Yidlenah" - to Rabah bar bar Chanah, who understood
perfectly what Ula was thinking.