ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 56
PESACHIM 56 - (21 Tishrei) has been dedicated by Gedalliah Jawitz in honor
of the Yahrzeit of Yehuda ben Simcha Volf Jawitz.
(a) The men of Yericho grafted date-palms all day - on the fourteenth of
(b) 'Gamzi'os of Hekdesh' - are newly-grown branches of carob and Shikmah
trees which their fathers had declared Hekdesh.
(c) The Chachamim protested when the men of Yericho ...
1. ... ate fruit that had fallen from the tree on Shabbos - because fruit
that fell from a tree on Shabbos is forbidden (in case one comes to pick
fruit that is still attached).
2. ... left Pei'ah in the vegetable fields - because the poor will assume it
to be real Pei'ah, which is Patur from Ma'aser (when in fact it is not).
(a) Chizkiyah ...
1. ... dragged his wicked father's remains on a bed of ropes - as an
atonement for his many misdeeds, and to teach the remaining Resha'im a
(b) The Chachamim did not however, agree with the fact that he ...
2. ... grind the copper snake that Moshe had made - because people were
beginning to worship it.
3. ... hide the book of all cures - because the purpose of every illness is
to prompt one to do self-introspection and then to repent for one's sins;
however, due to the book of cures, people were relying on the book, without
bothering with the introspection (see also Pirush ha'Mishnayos
1. ... cut down the doors of the Heichal and sent them to the King of Asyria
as a bribe to stop him from attacking Yerushalayim - because he should have
had more faith in Hashem, who had already told him that He would protect
(c) The reason that he did this was in order to give the many people who had
not yet had a chance to become Tahor (from the Tum'os that was the legacy of
his wicked father Achaz - in order to bring the Korban Pesach be'Taharah).
2. ... stopped-up the waters of the Upper-Gichon, to deprive the Asyrians of
a source of water - for the same reason as in the previous answer.
3. ... declared a leap-year after Nisan had already entered - because of the
Pasuk in Bo "ha'Chodesh ha'Zeh" from which Chazal derive 'Zeh Nisan, ve'Ein
Acher Nisan' (see Berachos 10b, where it is explained that in fact,
Chizkiyah declared a leap-year on the thirtieth of Adar, a day that was
*fit* to be Nisan, and not the first of Nisan itself).
(a) They would take a mixture made from wet myrtle leaves, berries from a
laurel-tree and barley-flour that had been lying in a vessel for not more
than forty days - heat it up and pour it into the heart of the date-palm.
(b) Alternatively, they would take a young branch from a male date-palm
(which *does* produce fruit) and place it into a cleft in a branch of a
female palm (which does *not*), thereby causing it to produce fruit.
(c) According to Rava, Korchin Al She'ma means that they would read "ha'Yom
Al Levavecha", as if to say that it is only today that these words should be
on your hearts, but not tomorrow (and really, the word "ha'Yom" belongs to
the previous words ("Asher Anochi Metzavecha *Ha'Yom*").
(d) According to the second version of Rebbi Yehudah's explanation, the men
of Yericho would recite the Pasuk of "Baruch Shem" aloud.
(a) The source for saying 'Baruch Shem' after the Pasuk of Shema - is the
story related in the She'ma, where the Shechinah left Ya'akov Avinu as he
was about to tell his sons when Mashi'ach was due to come. He then expressed
his fear this happened because his sons were guilty of Avodah-Zarah (and
that he was no different than his grandfather Avraham, who had a son called
Yishmael, and his father Yitzchak, who had a son called Esav). When his son
heard of his fears, they reasured him with the words "Shema Yisrael" ... ,
to which he responded "Baruch Shem ... .
(b) We say it quietly, because Moshe did not insert it in the Torah. It can
be compared, says the Gemara, to a princess, who smelt the delicious aroma
of spiced meat wafting across from the kitchen. She badly wanted to taste
some of it; however she was in a quandry, whether she should belittle
herself by asking for some, or whether she should suffer and go without. So
her servants, seeing her dilemma, brought her some on the quiet.
(c) The Chachamim instituted that one should say "Baruch Shem" aloud,
because of the heretics, who would be certain to accuse us of saying
something improper after the She'ma. In Neherda'a however, where there were
no heretics, this was not necessary, so they continud to say it quietly.
(a) According to Rebbi Meir in the Beraisa, the men of Yericho harvested the
crops with the Chachamim's consent. Min ha'Torah there is nothing wrong with
that - since Yericho was a location from which the Omer could anyway not be
brought; nor did the Rabbanan decree an Isur, since Chadash is an Isur from
which one anyway keeps away (see Sugya above, 11a).
(b) Nevertheless, the Chachamim did not give their consent to piling up the
crops before the Omer - because, since there is no loss involved, they were
afraid that, if this was permitted, people would, in the course of their
work, come to eat it (before the Omer has been brought).
(c) The men of Yericho made breaches in their fences - to feed the poor the
fruit that fell from their trees.
(d) If the men of Yericho grafted their trees etc. with the consent of the
Chachamim, then why was it only the men of Yericho who did it? Why did
everyone else follow their example? Consequently, he changes the text to
read like our Mishnah: namely, that the first three things which he men of
Yericho did, may not have evoked a protest from the Chachamim, they were
nevertheless, not done with their consent.
(a) How can Rebbi Yehudah include 've'Kotzrin ve'Godshin Lifnei ha'Omer' in
the list of things which were done without the Chachamim's consent - when we
have learnt in a Mishnah in Menachos 'Anshei Yericho *Kotzrin* Lifnei
ha'Omer *bi'Retzon Chachamim*, ve'Godshin ... she'Lo bi'Retzon Chachamim,
ve'Lo Michu Bahem Chachamim'? And we know that the author of that Mishnah is
Rebbi Yehudah, since he is the one to make an issue of 'Michu' and 'Lo Michu
(b) We know for sure that it is correct to erase 'Kotzrin' from the list of
things that Rebbi Yehudah forbids - because otherwise, we will have *four*
things with which the Chachamim disagreed (Markivin, Korchin, Kotzrin, and
Godshin), and not *three*, as specified.
(a) The men of Yericho hold 'Ein Me'ilah be'Gidulin'; whereas the Chachamim
maintain that nevertheless, there is an Isur de'Rabanan on the branches that
grow from a Hekdesh tree.
(b) According to Ula quoting Resh Lakish - everybody agrees that dates
caught at the foot of the tree are permitted, because this will not cause
him to pick fruit from the top of the tree. And it is by fruit at the top of
the tree that they argue: the men of Yericho, who permitted it, were *not
concerned* with the likelihood that one may climb the tree and pick the
fruit that is still attached there; whereas the Chachamim *were*.
(c) Rava asks on this that even the dates at the foot of the tree are
intrinsically forbidden. Why? Because, since they were still attached when
Shabbos entered, they are Muktzah for the whole of Shabbos, even after they
have fallen on the ground.
(a) The dates that were attached when Shabbos entered might not be Muktzah -
because they were fit for his ravens (assuming that he rears ravens - a sign
of prestige in those days).
(b) 'Rebbi Yehudah Omer, Im Lo Haysah Neveilah me'Erev Shabbos, Asurah, Lefi
she'Einah Min ha'Muchan'. We try to prove Rabah right from there - because,
if something that is prepared for humans is not considered prepared for
animals, how much more so should something that is prepared for animals not
be considered prepared for humans.
(c) Ula refutes Rabah's proof on the grounds that, whereas something that is
fit for humans, the owner will certainly not designate for animals (so it
remains Muktzah for animals), something that is fit for animals, he will
designate for humans (since a person thinks first and foremost of himself,
before he thinks of animals).
(d) According to Ravin quoting Resh Lakish - the men of Yericho *did not
decree* fruit that is found at the foot of the tree because of fruit that is
found at the top; whereas the Chachamim *did*.
It is possible to explain that there are really only *two* opinions in the
two Beraisos, and not *three* - by establishing the Tana Kama of the Rebbi
Shimon's Beraisa to be Rebbi Yossi and vice-versa, and to explain it like
this: In the first Beraisa - 'Barishonah, Hayu Nosnin Pei'ah le'Lefes,
ve'li'Ke'ruv; Rebbi Yossi Omer, Af le'Kaplut', Rebbi Yossi is not adding a
third species to the Tana Kama, but re-placing the Tana Kama's 'Ke'ruv',
with 'Kaplut' (thus making him the Tana Kama of Rebbi Shim'on's Beraisa).
And in the second Beraisa - 'Hayu Nosnin Pei'ah le'Lefes ve'la'Kaplut; Rebbi
Shimon Omer, Af li'Ke'ruv', Rebbi Shimon is not adding a third species
either; he is re-placing the Tana Kama's Kaplut with Ke'ruv (making him the
Tana Kama of Rebbi Yossi's Beraisa).
1. 'Kol she'Hu Ochel' - comes to preclude wild seeds of dyes, which are *not edible* (cultivated ones *are*) from Pei'ah.
(b) The men of Yericho did not leave Pei'ah from *all* vegetables - but only
from the heads (i.e. the leaves) of turnips, which would be preserved
together with the turnip itself (which does not have the Din of a vegetable
in this regard).
2. 've'Nishmar' - ... Hefker from Pei'ah.
3. ... 've'Gidulo min ha'Aretz' - ... mushrooms from Pei'ah.
4. ... 'u'Lekitasan ke'Achas' - ... figs from Pei'ah.
5. ... 'u'Machniso le'Kiyum' - ... vegetables from Pei'ah.