ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 96
PESACHIM 96 - dedicated by Uri Wolfson in honor of his Chavrusa, Rav
Mordechai Rabin of Har Nof.
(a) Rava resolves Rav Yosef's Sha'aleh (whether a Tamei Mes will be Chayav
if he eats the Emurim of a Pesach ha'Ba be'Tum'ah or not) - from the fact
that the source for the prohibition of eating the Emurim be'Tum'ah is from
the extra words "Asher la'Hashem", which is written by the Basar. So
wherever one is not Chayav for eating the *Basar* be'Tum'ah, one is not
Chayav for eating the *Emurim* either.
(b) 'Perhaps Sheviski Avud' - means that perhaps they ate the Emurim on
spits. Who said that they were burned (like they would subsequently be in
the Beis ha'Mikdash)?
(c) The three altars in Egypt were the two door-posts and the lintel.
(d) They were used exclusively for the blood, and there was nothing else
there on which to burn the Emurim.
(a) We learn from ...
1. ... the Pasuk "ve'Hayah Lachem *le'Mishmeres*" - that the Pesach needs to
be examined for blemishes four days before Pesach (in Egypt, this was
specifically from the tenth of Nisan).
(b) From the Pasuk in Bo ...
2. ... the Gezeirah Shavah "le'Mishmeres" and "Tishmeru" (by the Korban
Tamid) - that the Tamid too, requires examination four days before it is due
to be brought.
1. ... "Dabru ... be'Asor la'Chodesh *ha'Zeh* ve'Yikchu" - that it was only
the Pesach in Egypt that needed to be examined from the tenth, but not that
of subsequent generations.
(c) Even though the subsequent Pesachim do not require examination from the
tenth, they nevertheless do require examination four days before they are
sacrificed, as we shall soon see.
2. ... "ve'Hayah Lachem le'Mishmeres Ad Arba'ah-Asar Yom la'Chodesh
*ha'Zeh*" - that it is only the Pesach Rishon that needs to be examined four
days before, but not the Pesach Sheini.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Bo "ve'Avad'ta es ha'Avodah ha'Zos ba'Chodesh
ha'Zeh" - that all the Avodos of subsequent Pesachim should be equivalent to
those of Pesach Mitzrayim.
Rashi rejects the section that queries the word *Bo* by "Toshav ve'Sachir" -
because of the answer of the Gemara: that someone who serves idols is
permitted to eat Terumah. Firstly, he asks, why does the Gemara consider a
Toshav and Sachir (which normally refers to hired workers) as idolaters; and
secondly, we are learning the same Derashah as we learned a few moments ago
by Ben Neichar (see 3c. 2) - it is unclear why Rashi refers to a Gemara in
ha'Areil and not the Gemara that we just learned).
(b) Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah Darshens from "ve'Achlu es ha'Basar ba'Laylah
*ha'Zeh*" - that the Pesach must be eaten by mid-night (from a 'Gezeirah
Shavah' from "ve'Avarti be'Eretz Mitzrayim ba'Laylah ha'Zeh"), and Rebbi
Akiva, that it can only be eaten on that night (and not for two nights, like
(c) we learn from ...
1. ... "ve'Chol Areil Lo Yochal *Bo*" - that an Areil is obligated to eat
Matzah and Maror (even when he is unable to eat the Pesach - see Tosfos
120a. DH 'Kol').
(d) Had the Torah exempted an Areil from the Pesach - we would have ascribed
that to the fact that he is physically repulsive (whereas a Ben Neichar is
*not*); and had the Torah exempted only a Ben Neichar, we would have
ascribed that to the fact that his heart is not with Hashem (whereas an
Areil's *is*). Consequently, the Torah needs to exempt them both.
2. ... "Kol Ben Neichar Lo Yochal *Bo*" - that a Kohen who serves idols may
3. ... "u'Maltah Oso, Az Yochal *Bo*" - that a Kohen who has a son or a non-
Jewish slave who are uncircumcised may eat Terumah.
4. ... "ve'Etzem Lo Yishberu *Bo*" - that one may break the bones of a Pasul
5. ... "Al Tochlu *Mimenu* Na - from a 'Gezeirah Shavah' ("Mimemu" by
Ma'aser from "Mimenu" by Pesach) that an Areil is forbidden to eat Ma'aser
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "va'Achaltem *Oso* be'Chipazon" - that
subsequent Pesachim need not be eaten in haste (with belts fastened, wearing
shoes and stick in hand), as it was in Egypt.
(b) We finally amend the Mishnah 'Pesach Mitzrayim ... ve'Ne'echal
be'Chipazon be'Laylah Echad, u'Pesach Doros Kol Shiv'ah' - to read 'Pesach
Mitzrayim ... ve'Ne'echal be'Chipazon be'Laylah Echad *ve'Hu ha'Din
le'Pesach Doros, ve'Chimutzo Kol ha'Yom*, u'Pesach Doros Kol Shiv'ah'.
(c) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learns from the juxtaposition of the two Pesukim in
Bo "Lo Ye'achel Chametz ... ha'Yom Atem Yotz'im" - that the Isur of Chametz
only applied in Egypt for one day.
(a) 'Temuras Pesach Kereivah' that Rebbi Yehoshua heard about - referred to
a Pesach that became lost and the owner 'transferred' its Kedushah to a
Chulin animal (exactly when, we shall soon see), which is then brought
directly on the Mizbei'ach as a Shelamim.
(b) He found this problematic, because he had also heard that 'Temuras
Pesach Einah Kereivah' and he was unable to explain the distinction.
(c) Rebbi Akiva solved the problem: If the lost lamb was found *before* its
replacement was Shechted, it is not brought directly, but sent to graze in
the field, until it becomes blemished. Then it is redeemed and the proceeds
are used to purchase a Shelamim. But if it was found *after* the Shechitah,
it is brought directly as a Shelamim.
(d) The reason that the former was not brought directly as a Pesach, and
neither was its Temurah - is because, since it was found before the
Shechitah of the replacement and was available for Shechitah, the fact that
the other one was Shechted, and it, rejected, causes it to become 'Dachuy',
rendering it unfit to bring on the Mizbei'ach (whilst a Temurah tends to
adopt the same Kedushah as the animal from which it came).
(a) The reason that Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Akiva discuss the *Temuras*
Pesach and not the *Pesach itself* (that got lost) - is to teach us the
bigger Chidush that even a Temuras Pesach (which is initially designated as
a *Shelamim*, and not as a Pesach (and perhaps it should not therefore be
considered rejected by the replacement, which is after all, not a
*Shelamim*, but a *Pesach*) is nevertheless sometimes Dachuy.
(b) According to Rebbi Zeira, who considers the criterion to be, not the
Shechitah itself, but mid-day - the reason the Tana mentions Shechitah, is
because mid-day is the time when the Shechitah commences.
(c) The ramifications of their Machlokes - will be if the lost Pesach was
found after mid-day but before the Shechitah of the replacement; according
to Rabah, it is rejected and is therefore sent to graze; whereas according
to Rebbi Zeira, it may be Shechted directly as a Shelamim.
(d) If the lost Pesach had not been re-placed at the time when it was found
- then it is not in any way rejected and can therefore be brought directly
on the Mizbei'ach.
(a) If the Pesach was found *before* the Shechitah of its replacement, and
the owner declared a Temurah on it *after* the Shechitah, Rabah says that it
must be sent to graze - because the Temurah came from a rejected Kedushah.
(b) A Temurah is only brought directly if the lost lamb was also found after
the Shechitah of the replacement.
(c) The Gemara attempts to refute Rabah's statement from the Beraisa, which
learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Im Kesev" that a Temuras Pesach is brought
directly as a Shelamim - because, if this was talking about a case where the
lost lamb was found and the Temurah declared *after* the Shechitah of the
replacement, then what will be the Chidush, as this appears to be obvious?
Consequently, the Pasuk must be speaking when the *Temurah may have been
*declared* after the Shechitah, but the *lamb* must have been found
*beforehand* - and yet, it is brought directly as a Shelamim?
(d) We know that a Temuras Pesach should be brought as a Shelamim - from the
Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Zavachta Pesach", from which we learn that a Mosar
ha'Pesach is brought as a Shelamim, and a Temuras ha'Pesach that cannot be
brought as a Pesach, is also a Mosar ha'Pesach.
(a) We need a special Pasuk for the Alyah of the Pesach. We would not have
known it from the Alyah of the sheep that is brought with the Emurim of all
other Korbanos - because the Emurim themselves are not written explicitly by
the Pesach (only from the Pasuk in Korach "Es Damam Tizrok ve'es *Chelbam*
Taktir" - which is written by Bechor).
(b) we learn from ...
1. ... "*Im* Kesev" - that the Mosar ha'Pesach (or the Chagigas Arba'ah-
Asar) has the Din of a Shelamim.
(c) We cannot say that a goats tail is not considered an Alyah - because if
that was so, why would we require a Pasuk to preclude it from the Din of
2. ... "ve'Im Eiz" - that the Alyah of a goat is not brought with the Emurim
of the goat, as is that of a lamb.
(a) In the second Lashon, Rabah comes to qualify the Reisha. 'ha'Pesach
she'Nimtza Kodem Shechitas ha'Pesach, Yir'eh Ad she'Yista'ev', he says,
refers specifically to a case where both the lamb was found and the Temurah
was declared, *before* the Shechitah of its replacement; but not if the
Temurah was declared *afterwards*.
(b) Abaye refutes Rabah's statement from a Beraisa which precludes from
"Pesach Hu", a Temuras Pesach that was found before Pesach. To preclude a
case where both the lost lamb was found and the Temurah was declared before
the replacement was Shechted from being brought on the Mizbei'ach directly,
is obvious and does not require a Pasuk. The Pasuk must therefore come to
preclude a case where although the lamb was found *before* the Shechitah,
the Temurah was declared only *afterwards* - yet it is not brought directly
on the Mizbei'ach - a clear disproof for the second Lashon of Rabah.