(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 27


(a) The Beraisa that we learnt on the previous Amud (regarding Orlah and K'ai ha'Kerem) virtually duplicates the Mishnah in Avodah-Zarah, which speaks about the wood of an Asheirah. The Mishnah says there 'Afah Bo es ha'Pas, Asurah be'Hana'ah' (like Rebbi).
Will it make any difference if the wood first fell into other wood?

(b) What does Rebbi Eliezer hold there?

(a) The Gemara suggests that perhaps Rebbi Eliezer is strict *there* only because of the stringency of Avodah-Zarah, but that in other areas of Halachah he will hold 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem, Mutar'.
On what two grounds is this suggestion rejected?

(b) So we have proved that the author of the Beraisa of Tanur by Orlah and K'ai ha'Kerem is Rebbi Eliezer.
Why specifically Rebbi Eliezer, and not the Tana Kama (of the Mishnah in Avodah-Zarah), who seems to agree with him in this point?

(a) Assuming that Rebbi holds 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem, Mutar' (and the Beraisa of Tanur, by Orlah and ęK'lai ha'Kerem is Rebbi Eliezer), it is specifically by an oven and a pot that Rebbi disagrees with Rebbi Eliezer; he agrees with him however, that earthenware dishes, cups and jars which were manufactured using wood from an Asheirah are forbidden.
Why is that?

(b) In the second Lashon, Rebbi will even agree with Rebbi Eliezer by a pot, and argues with him only by an oven.

(c) Shmuel quoted the Beraisa like this ... 'Afah Bo es ha'Pas, Rebbi Omer ha'Pas Muteres, va'Chachamim Omrim ha'Pas Asurah'.
Why did he deliberately switch the opinions?

(a) 'Bishlah Al-gabei Gechalim, Divrei ha'Kol ha'Pas Muteres'. Some say that Rebbi only concedes this only by dying embers, but not if the coals are still red-hot.
What do others say?

(b) According to this second opinion, how will the Rabbanan, who argue with Rebbi (and hold 'Ein Shevach Eitzim be'Pas' at all) establish the Torah's prohibition to use the peels of Orlah and even the wood of K'lai ha'Kerem?

Answers to questions



(a) Why will even the Rabbanan, who permit the bread by the case of Orlah and K'lai ha'Kerem, concede that it is forbidden, if it was baked with the wood of Hekdesh?

(b) What does Rava mean when he asks on this 'va'Halo Ma'al ha'Masik'?

(a) Rav Papa answers that we are talking here about Shelamim -wood, and according to Rebbi Yehudah.
What is Shelamim-wood?

(b) What does Rebbi Yehudah say, and how does Rav Papa apply this to our case?

(c) Why are Shelamim not subject to Me'ilah?

(d) Since Rav Papa anyway establishes the case according to Rebbi Yehudah, he could just as well have answered that it speaks when he used the Hekdesh- wood on purpose.
Why did he not do this?

(a) In light of the above, how do we explain the Beraisa 've'Eifer Hekdesh Le'olam Asur'? Why does it not go out to Chulin when the person is Mo'el?

(b) What else does the Beraisa cite whose ashes are not permitted?

(c) Why does the Beraisa use the expression 'Le'olam' specifically with regard to the ashes of Hekdesh?

(a) Rav Shemayah establishes the Beraisa 'be'Osan she'Te'unin Genizah'. What does this comprise?

(b) What three-point Derashah does the Beraisa make from the Pasuk in Tzav (with regard to the Terumas ha'Deshen) "*ve'Samo* Eitzel ha'Mizbei'ach"?

(a) Rebbi Yehudah learns that Chametz must be burnt, from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Nosar.
What is the 'Kal va'Chomer'?

(b) What objection do the Rabbanan raise to this 'Kal va'Chomer'?

(c) How does Rebbi Yehudah get round the objection, yet still learn Chametz from Nosar?

(d) And how does he refute their counter-argument ...

  1. ... from Neveilah (which does *not* need to be burnt)?
  2. ... from Shor ha'Niskal (which *is* Asur be'Hana'ah and still does not need to be burned)?
(a) How do the Rabbanan finally force Rebbi Yehudah to retract from learning a direct 'Mah Matzinu' from Nosar?

(b) Rebbi Yehudah then learns the obligation to burn Chametz, from the fact that Chametz, like Nosar, is subject to 'Bal Tosiru' (which all the above are not).
How do the Rabbanan prove him wrong from Asham Taluy and Chatas ha'Of that comes in the case of a Safek?

(c) What is the meaning of Abaye's statement 'Sedana be'Sudni Yasiv, mi'Devil Yadei Mishtalim'? In what context does Abaye say it?

Answers to questions
Next daf

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