PESACHIM 24 (7 Av) - Dedicated in memory of Dr. Simcha Bekelnitzky (Simcha Gedalya ben Shraga Feibush) of Queens, N.Y., Niftar 7 Av 5757, by his wife and daughters. G-d-fearing and knowledgeable, Simcha was well known in the community for his Chesed and Tzedakah. He will long be remembered.

1)

ANOTHER SOURCE TO FORBID HANA'AH

(a)

Objection (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani): This verse teaches R. Shimon's law!

1.

(Beraisa - R. Shimon): "Ba'Kodesh...ba'Esh Tisaref" - this teaches that a [Pasul] Chatas is burned in the Kodesh (the Azarah).

2.

Question: What is the source for other Kodshei Kodoshim and Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim?

3.

Answer: "V'Chol...ba'Kodesh...ba'Esh Tisaref." (Answer #1 is rejected.)

(b)

Answer #2 (to Question 3:e, 23B - the Talmid): Your Rebbi, R. Yonason, learns [other Isurim] from "V'Im Yivaser mi'Besar ha'Milu'im...[Lo Ye'achel]";

1.

Question: What do we learn from this? Obviously one may not eat it - it says "V'Sorafta Es ha'Nosar ba'Esh"!

2.

Answer: Rather, we use it to teach about other things forbidden [to eat] - since we do not need this to learn Isur Achilah, we learn Isur Hana'ah.

3.

Suggestion: Just like Nosar is burned, we should say that all Isurim must be burned!

4.

Rejection: "V'Sorafta Es ha'Nosar ba'Esh" - Nosar is burned, other Isurim are not.

(c)

Objection: We use "Lo Ye'achel" [in the verse of Milu'im] to teach R. Elazar's law!

1.

(R. Elazar): "Lo Ye'achel Ki Kodesh Hu" - this is a Lav forbidding eating any Pasul Kodshim.

(d)

Defense of Answer #1 (Abaye): Really, we learn Isurei Hana'ah from "V'Chol Chatas..." - but not like we said before (we do not learn from "Ba'Esh Tisaref," rather, from "Lo Se'achel"):

1.

Question: It would have sufficed to say "Ba'Esh Tisaref" - what do we learn from "Lo Se'achel"?

2.

Answer: It need not teach about the Chatas itself - we learn [the Isur to eat it from "Ba'Esh Tisaref," and a Lav] from R. Elazar's teaching - we use it to teach about other Isurim [of Achilah] - since we need not learn Isur Achilah, we learn Isur Hana'ah.

3.

Suggestion: Just like a Pasul Chatas is burned, we should say that all Isurim must be burned!

4.

Rejection: "V'Sorafta Es ha'Nosar ba'Esh" - Nosar is burned, other Isurim are not.

(e)

Objection (Rav Papa): Perhaps "Lo Se'achel" comes to forbid a Pasul Chatas with its own Lav - it is not enough to rely on R. Elazar's Lav, for that is Lav shebi'Chlalos (different Isurim forbidden by one Lav), one is not lashed for it!

(f)

Answer #3 (Rav Papa): Rather, we learn from "Veha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei Lo Ye'achel ba'Esh Yisaref:"

1.

Question: We do not need this for [a Lav] for it itself, a Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser teaches this:

i.

Ma'aser is more lenient [than Kodshim], yet it says "V'Lo Vi'arti Mimenu b'Tamei" (it is forbidden if the eater or the Ma'aser is Tamei) - all the more so, a Lav forbids Tamei Kodesh!

ii.

Question: A Kal va'Chomer cannot teach an Azharah (a Lav to Mechayev lashes)!

iii.

Answer: We learn from a Hekesh (a verse equates them) - "Lo Suchal Le'chol bi'Sh'arecha Masar Degancha...u'Vchoros Bekarcha...";

2.

Answer: Since "Lo Ye'achel" is not needed for it itself, we use it to teach about other Isurim [of Achilah] - since we need not learn Isur Achilah, we learn Isur Hana'ah.

3.

Suggestion: Just like Tamei Kodshim is burned, we should say that all Isurim must be burned!

4.

Rejection: "V'Sorafta Es ha'Nosar ba'Esh" - Nosar is burned, other Isurim are not.

2)

LAVIM FOR TAMEI KODSHIM

(a)

Question (Ravina): Perhaps the verse teaches about Tamei Kodshim itself, to Mechayev a second Lav, similar to Abaye's teaching!

1.

(Abaye): If one ate a Putisa (a bug found in water), he receives four [sets of 39] lashes (there are two Lavim for Sheretz ha'Mayim, and two [general] Lavim for [all kinds of] Sheratzim);

2.

If he ate an ant, he is lashed five times (the two general Lavim, and three for Sheretz ha'Aretz);

24b----------------------------------------24b

3.

If he ate a wasp, he is lashed six times [for the above five and for Sheretz ha'Of].

(b)

Answer (Rav Ashi): Whenever we can expound to learn a new law we do so, rather than to say that the Torah forbids the same matter with multiple Lavim.

(c)

Question: What do we learn from "Veha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei Lo Ye'achel"?

(d)

Answer: This includes wood and frankincense [of Hekdesh, one is liable for eating them b'Tum'ah].

(e)

Question: What do we learn from the end of this verse, "Veha'Basar Kol Tahor Yochal Basar"?

(f)

Answer: This includes the Eimurim [the parts offered on the Mizbe'ach].

(g)

Question: A different verse includes them!

1.

(Beraisa): "Veha'Nefesh Asher Tochal Besar mi'Zevach ha'Shelamim Asher la'Shem" - this includes the Eimurim.

(h)

Answer: That is Mechayev Kares for a Tamei person who ate Eimurim - our verse is a Lav for eating Tamei Eimurim.

3)

LIABILITY FOR ABNORMAL BENEFIT

(a)

Version #1 (R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): One is not lashed for eating any Isur in an abnormal way.

(b)

Question: What does he come to exclude?

(c)

Answer (Rav Simi Bar Ashi): He exempts one who eats raw Chelev.

(d)

Version #2 (R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): One is not lashed for benefit from any Isur in an abnormal way.

(e)

Question: What does he come to exclude?

(f)

Answer (Rav Simi Bar Ashi): He exempts one who put Chelev of Shor ha'Niskal on a wound; all the more so, one who eats raw Chelev is exempt. (Its normal benefit is to burn it or smear it on hide.)

(g)

Support (R. Avya citing R. Yochanan): If one put Chelev of Shor ha'Niskal on a wound he is exempt, for one is not lashed for benefit from any Isur in an abnormal way.

(h)

Support (R. Zeira - Mishnah): The only liquids of Orlah for which one is lashed [for drinking them] are wine and olive oil.

1.

Inference: One is not lashed for juice of strawberries, dates and pomegranates.

2.

Suggestion: This is because this is not the normal way to consume them!

(i)

Rejection (Abaye): If it would exempt consuming the fruits themselves abnormally, this would be a support;

1.

But the Mishnah only exempts for [the juice, which is] a mere secretion!

(j)

(Abaye): All agree that one is lashed for benefit from Kil'ai ha'Kerem even in an abnormal way.

(k)

Question: What is the reason?

(l)

Answer: The Isur for Kil'ai ha'Kerem is not expressed regarding eating [rather, "Pen Tikdash" - this is expounded Pen Tukad Esh, lest it will [have to] be burned].

(m)

Question (Beraisa - Isi ben Yehudah) Question: What is the source forbidding Basar v'Chalav (meat cooked with milk)?

1.

Answer: It says "Ki Am Kadosh Ata la'Shem Elokecha [...Lo Sevashel Gedi ba'Chalev Imo]" and "V'Anshei Kodesh Tihyun Li" - just like the latter verse discusses [Tereifah, an] Isur, also the former.

2.

Question: This forbids eating - what is the source to forbid benefit?

3.

Answer: We learn from a Kal va'Chomer - Orlah did not result from transgression, yet it is Asur b'Hana'ah - Basar v'Chalav results from a transgression, all the more so it is Asur b'Hana'ah!

4.

Question: We cannot learn from Orlah, for it never was permitted - meat and milk were permitted [before they were cooked together]!

5.

Answer: Chametz b'Pesach shows that Isur Hana'ah does not depend on this - it is Asur b'Hana'ah, even though it was once permitted!

6.

Question: We cannot learn from Chametz, which is punishable by Kares, to Basar v'Chalav, which has no Kares!

7.

Answer: Kil'ai ha'Kerem shows that Isur Hana'ah does not depend on this - it is Asur b'Hana'ah, even though it has no Kares!

8.

Summation of question: According to Abaye, we cannot learn from Kil'ai ha'Kerem, for one is lashed for benefit from it even in an abnormal way!

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF