ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 63
(a) 'Hikdim Mulim la'Arelim' would appear to be Kasher (according to
Acherim) because 'Kula Orlah Ba'inan, ve'Leika'; in that case, why is
'Hikdim Arelim le'Mulim' Pasul? It should be Kasher for the same reason?
(b) When Rava says 'Adayin Hi Machlokes', he means that even by Chetzyah
Olah, ve'Chetzyah Shelamim (which is similar to our case of 'Hikdim Arelim
le'Mulin', where he is doing one Avodash with two Machshavos) Rebbi Meir
(alias Acherim) holds 'Tefos Lashon Rishon'.
(c) Since, according to Rava, Acherim holds 'Einah li'Shechitah Ela be'Sof',
only one Machshavah can be valid in such a short space of time; and, since
he holds Tefos Lashon Rishon, it is his first Machshavah that is valid,
whether it is Machsheves Mulin or Machsheves Areilim.
(a) According to Rabah, Acherim can even hold 'Yeshnah li'Shechitah
Mitechilah ve'Ad Sof'. It speaks however, when he specifically intended to
Shecht on behalf of both Mulin and Arelim. What happened was that he had
only managed to utter Arelim, when he concluded the Shechitah. Rebbi Meir
does not require 'Piv ve'Libo Shavin', in which case, we ignore the fact
that he had had in mind to add 'u'le'Mulin'; we go after what he actually
said, not what he meant to say, and the Korban is Pasul. Whereas, the
Chachamim require 'Piv ve'Libo Shavin'. Consequently, since he had had in
mind to add 'u'le'Mulin', the Korban is Kasher, even though he did not
manage to complete what he wanted to say.
(b) The Stam Mishnah in Terumos says 'ha'Miskaven Lomar Terumah, ve'Amar
Ma'aser' (or vice-versa) - his statement is ineffective, since he did not
say what he had in mind to say. So we see, that Rebbi Meir does require 'Piv
(c) Abaye finally explains that Acherim holds 'Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir' ...
1. ... By 'Hikdim Mulin la'Areilim' - he Shechted the first Si'man for Mulin
and the second for Arelim as well, in which case, both Simanim were Shechted
be'Kashrus, so the Pesach is Kasher;
(d) According to the Rabbanan, whichever Si'man he Shechted first, the
Pesach is Kasher - because 'Ein Mefaglin be'Chatzi Matir' (provided that at
least one of the Simanim was Shechted for Mulin - even if it was Shechted
for Arelim as well).
2. ... By 'Hikdim Areilim le'Mulin' - he Shechted the first Si'man for
Arelim, and whatever he then thinks by the second Si'man, the Pesach will be
Pasul, because Rebbi Meir holds 'Mefaglin ba'Chatzi Matir' (e.g. one of the
two Simanim which render the Shechitah Kasher).
(a) If someone who owns Chametz, Shechts the Korban Pesach, he transgresses
the La'v of "Lo Sishchat Al Chametz Dam Zivchi" (Ki Sisa).
(b) Rebbi Yehudah compares the Korban Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim to the
Pesach in this regard.
(a) According to Rebbi Shimon that if someone Shechts other Korbanos on the
fourteenth on Chametz is always Patur, whereas if he Shechts them on the
fifteenth Lishmo (Le'shem Pesach) he is Patur; she'Lo Lishemo, he is Chayav.
(b) The sole exception to this is the Chatas, which becomes Pasul when it is
Shechted she'Lo Lishemo. Consequently, even Rebbi Shimon will agree that if
one Shechted a Chatas on the fifteenth she'Lo Lishemo on Chametz, he will be
(c) Someone who Shechts the Pesach on the fifteenth on Chametz, Lishemo, is
Patur, she'Lo Lishemo, he is Chayav.
(d) Rebbi Shimon holds Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah Lo She'mah Shechitah.
Consequently, for any Shechitah that is Pasul, he will not receive Malkos.
(a) If the Shochet, the Zorek or any member of the group possesses Chametz,
then the Shochet or the Zorek will receive Malkos for Shechting or
(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan, they will receive Malkos even if the
Chametz is at home in the owner's house.
(c) The Gemara rejects the suggestion that the source of their Machlokes is
whether "Al" (in the Pasuk "ve'Lo Sishchat Al Chametz Dam Zivchi") means
close by or not - on the grounds that they have already argued that point by
'ha'Shochet Todah Lifenim, ve'Lachmah Chutz le'Chomah'.
(a) It is the Shechitah of the Todah that causes the Lachmei Todah to adopt
Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf.
(b) According to Resh Lakish, the bread does not become Kadosh with the
Shechitah of the Todah, if it (the bread) is outside the Azarah, because he
holds that "Al" (in the Pasuk "Al Zevach ha'Todah Chalos" (Parshas Tzav)
means close by, whereas Rebbi Yochanan does understand "Al" in this way.
(a) If the Chametz is in the Azarah, then we know for sure that the Shochet
or the Zorek is transgressing a La'v, so that this is a Hasra'as Vaday,
whereas if it is *not*, we cannot be certain that they will be transgressing
(since perhaps the Chametz has been eaten or destroyed), and it will be a
Hasra'as Safek. Resh Lakish holds 'Hasra'as Safek Lo She'mah Hasra'a'h'.
Consequently, he requires the Chametz to be in the Azarah; whereas Rebbi
Yochanan, who holds 'Hasra'as Safek She'mah Hasra'ah', permits the Chametz
to be even outside the Azarah.
(b) If someone declares that he will eat a certain loaf of bread by the end
of that day, he is not subject to Malkos for not eating it, according to
Resh Lakish, because it is a Hasra'as Safek.
(c) It is no longer possible to explain the Machlokes regarding 'ha'Shochet
es ha'Pesach Al he'Chametz' by Hasra'as Safek, like we attempted to do in a.
- because Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish have already argued it out with
regard to 'Shevu'ah she'Ochal Kikar Zu ha'Yom' ... , and there is no point
in repeating the same Machlokes again.
(a) Even though Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue concerning whether Al
means close by or not by Chametz, we might have thought that it is
specifically here that Rebbi Yochanan does not require 'Al be'Samuch' -
because Chametz is Chametz wherever it is, so why should there be a
difference between Chametz that is inside the Azarah and Chametz that is
outside? By the Lachmei Todah, on the other hand, Rebbi Yochanan may well
agree that the breads must be in the Azarah when the Todah is being Shechted
in order to adopt Kedushas ha'Guf. Why?
(b) 'Midi de'Hava a'K'lei Shares' - which means that, just as a Kli Shares
renders Kadosh whatever is placed into it, but not what is outside, so too,
would we have thought that the breads of the Todah only become Kadosh if
they are actually inside the Azarah - if Rebbi Yochanan had not specifically
informed us otherwise (see Tosfos DH 'Midi de'Hava').
(c) Rebbi Ami learns from ...
1. ... "Lo Sishchat Al Chametz" (and not "Al Chemtzecha") - that the Shochet
receives Malkos even for Chametz that is not actually his, but belongs to
another member of his group.
2. ... "Lo Sishchat Al Chametz - ve'Lo Yalin Cheilev Chagi Ad Boker" - that
only those who are included in the La'av of "ve'Lo Yalin Cheilev Chagi Ad
Boker" (i.e. the Shochet and the Maktir) transgress, but not those who are
not members of the group.
(a) Rav Papa adds that also the Kohen who burns the Emurim - will transgress
if any member of that group possesses Chametz, seeing as he too, is subject
to the La'av of "ve'Lo Yalin Cheilev Chagi Ad Boker".
(b) The Beraisa which corroborates Rav Papa's statement, adds that a Kohen
who makes Melikah on the bird-offering of a Mechusar Kipurim on the
fourteenth of Nisan - after the Korban Tamid - does not receive Malkos. The
author of this Beraisa is Rebbi Shimon, who holds in our Mishnah that one is
not Chayav for Shechting any other Kodshim on Chametz on the fourteenth.
(c) The Beraisa mentions the Melikah of a bird Korban only because of the
Mechusar Kipurim, which, like the Korban Pesach, is Kasher after the Tamid
shel Bein ha'Arbayim, and is the most likely Korban that will be brought
after the Isur Chametz becomes effective. In fact, the same will apply to
any Korban that is brought then.
(a) 'ha'Mazeh' - refers to the Haza'as ha'Dam of the Chatas ha'Of.
(b) 'ha'Kometz es ha'Minchah Al ha'Chametz - Eino Over be'Lo Sa'aseh'.
(a) The author of both the Beraisa which exempts the Molek from Malkos and
that which sentences him - is Rebbi Shimon; the former Beraisa speaks on the
fourteenth, the latter on Chol ha'Mo'ed.
(b) The Gemara proves this answer to be correct, because otherwise, how can
the Tana one minute write (in the Reisha) 'Lo Amru Ela ba'Pesach Bilevad',
and then go on to write (in the Seifa) 'Echad ha'Shochet ... Echad ha'Molek,
ve'Echad ha'Mazeh' (which pertain to Korbanos other than the Pesach)?
(c) With regard to the contradiction between the Beraisa which obligates the
Maktir and the Beraisa which exempts him, this is indeed a Machlokes
Tana'im: the one Tana compares Haktarah to Shechitah, the other does not.