(a)From which moment does Chametz become Asur mid'Rabanan?
(b)What are 'Chiti Kurdenaisa', and why are they mentioned here?
(c)How is it possible for Chametz d'Rabanan to over-ride Kidushin d'Oraysa?
(d)Why is it not possible to make Bitul Chametz, once the sixth hour arrives?
(a)Chametz is Asur mid'Rabanan from the beginning of the sixth hour (according to Tosfos, it is forbidden only at the end of the sixth hour).
(b)'Chiti Kurdenisa' is wheat which grows in the area of Mount Ararat. Is is extremely hard, and although, according to Tosfos, it only becomes Chametz Nukshah (d'Rabanan), according to Rashi it is still Chametz d'Oraisa (see Yefeh Einayim). Chametz in the sixth hour is only Asur d'Rabanan. Nevertheless, the Rabanan deprived all such Chametz of any value, and if someone betrothes a woman with it, she is not Mekudeshes.
(c)Chametz d'Rabanan can over-ride Kidushin d'Oraysa - because anyone who is Mekadesh, does so on the understanding that the Rabanan agree (as we say in the text of the Kidushin 'ke'Das Moshe v'Yisrael'); and here, since the Rabanan declared the Chametz Hefker, the man and woman tacitly agree that the Kidushin should not be valid.
(d)It is not possible to make Bitul Chametz, once the sixth hour arrives - since, as we explained earlier, the Chametz is no longer his; so how can he possibly be Mevatel it?
(a)In view of the above, how will we explain the Beraisa, which permits someone sitting in the Beis-Hamedrash, who remembers that he has Chametz at home, to be Mevatel his Chametz on Yom-Tov?
(b)How does the Gemara prove this from the fact that the Beraisa speaks about a Talmid who is sitting in the Beis Hamedrash (in front of his Rebbe)?
(a)The Beraisa, which permits someone sitting in the Beis-Hamedrash, who remembers that he has Chametz at home, to be Mevatel his Chametz on Yom-Tov - speaks when the dough has been kneaded, but not baked, and has not yet become Chametz (though it is unclear how this is technically possible).
(b)The fact that the Beraisa speaks about a Talmid who is sitting in the Beis-Hamedrash (in front of his Rebbe) - implies that that is why he has to be Mevatel the dough; otherwise, he would go and rectify it (i.e. bake it). Now if the dough was already Chametz, what is the difference whether he is sitting in front of his Rebbe or not? Either way, he has to be Mevatel it!?
(a)How does the Gemara initially explain Rav's statement 'ha'Pas she'Ifshah, Keyvan she'*Ravsah Matzah*, Muteres?
(b)What is the problem with this explanation?
(c)Why was money that one found in Yerushalayim in front of the animal merchants, always Ma'aser-Sheni?
(a)The Gemara initially thought that, when Rav said 'ha'Pas she'Ifshah, Keyvan she'*Ravsah Matzah*, Muteres' - he meant that as long as that drawer contained more Matzah than Chametz, we assume that it is Matzah, and it is permitted.
(b)Why should we go after the majority of what the drawer contained? -- asks the Gemara. We should go after the last time it was used, like the Mishnah in Shekalim, which we will now proceed to explain.
(c)Money that one found in Yerushalayim in front of the animal- merchants, was always Ma'aser-Sheni - because most of the meat that was eaten in Yerushalayim, was from Ma'aser Sheni money. People would bring all their Ma'aser money to Yerushalayim on Yom-Tov, and whatever remained when they left, they would leave for the residents of Yerushalayim to eat after they had gone. Nor do we suspect that maybe it was the animal-merchants who had lost the money, because since there are more purchasers than sellers, the money probably fell from them - and is still Ma'aser.
(a)If money was found in the streets of Yerushalayim, it would depend upon whether it was found on Yom-Tov (when it would be Ma'aser) or during the rest of the year (when it would be Chulin)? Why should this Din be different than money found on Har ha'Bayis, which was always Chulin?
(b)Why was Har ha'Bayis not swept every day like the streets of Yerushalayim?
(c)What does the Gemara prove from the latter case (of money found in the streets of Yerushalayim)?
(d)So how do we amend Rav's statement regarding Pas she'Ifshah, and what is the Chidush?
(a)The reason that, if the money was found in the streets of Yerushalayim, it would depend upon whether it was found on Yom-Tov (when it would be Ma'aser) or during the rest of the year (when it would be Chulin) - is because the streets of Yerushalayim were swept daily, so that any money that was lost there, would be found on the same day. Consequently, it would depend upon when it was found. Har ha'Bayis however, was not swept every day. Consequently, money that was found, could have been lost a long time ago, so we just go after the majority of money that was taken there, which is Chulin.
(b)Har ha'Bayis did not need to be swept, because it was on a hill, and was kept clean by the winds - and besides, it was forbidden to enter the Har ha'Bayis with the dust on one's feet. This meant washing one's feet before entering the Har ha'Bayis, so it was never that dirty.
(c)We see from the case of the streets of Yerushalayim - that we do not go after the majority, but after the last one.
(d)We therefore amend Rav's statement to read, not 'ha'Pas she'Ifshah', but 'she'Rabu Yemei Matzah'. Since many days of Pesach have passed, the Matzah has had time to go bad, and is permitted. The Chidush is that even though it has gone very mouldy, we do not assume the Chametz to have been there from before Pesach; because, since he has been baking fresh Matzos every day, the remains of the Matzah on which he places the hot freshly-baked Matzos, quickly becomes very moldy.
(a)If we always contend with the last one, how will we explain the Beraisa, where Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah considers money that was found in a box to be Ma'aser, if it was used mainly for Ma'aser - irrespective of what it was used for last (three answers)?
(a)The Beraisa of Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, which considers money that was found in a box to be Ma'aser, if it was used mainly for Ma'aser - irrespective of what it was used for last - speaks either when the box was used for both Ma'aser-money and Chulin, and he cannot recall which was used last, or when piles of both Ma'aser-money and Chulin had been in the box at the same time, or when the money was found in a crevice in the box, when we cannot go after the last one (like we learnt earlier by Har ha'Bayis).
(a)Rav Papa and Rav Papi (both quoting Rava) agree that 'Leva'er Chametz' is a good text. What then, is their Machlokes?
(b)Seeing that one is about to search for Chametz, why does one then recite 'Al Bi'ur Chametz'?
(a)The dispute between Rav Papa and Rav Papi concerns the text 'Al Bi'ur Chametz: whether it too, like 'Leva'er, refers to the past, or whether it only implies the future.
(b)The reason that they recite 'Al Bi'ur Chametz', although it is the Bedikah that one is now about to perform, is because the Bedikah is also part of the Bi'ur.
(a)Why will even Rav Papi concede that one must recite 'Al ha'Milah' and not 'Lamul'?
(b)Does anyone recite 'Lamul'?
(c)According to Rav Papi, what would be the text ...
1. ... of someone who was Shechting a Chulin animal (even his own)?
2. ... of someone who was Shechting his Korban, and why the difference?
(d)According to Rav Papi, why is the text for the Berachah over taking the Lulav 'Al Netilas Lulav'?
(a)Even Rav Papi (who holds that 'Al Bi'ur Chametz' is acceptable), will agree that a Mohel must recite 'Al ha'Milah', since he is only a Sheli'ach (and 'La'mul' implies that the Mitzvah is incumbent upon him).
(b)The father of the baby recites 'Lamul es Bni'.
(c)According to Rav Papi, someone who Shechts...
1. ... a Chulin animal (even his own) recites 'Al ha'Shechitah', because 'Le' implies that there is a Mitzvah to perform the act over which he is reciting the Berachah, and Shechitah is not a Mitzvah (only a Hechsher).
2. ... a Korban, where the onus of bringing a Korban, right up to the Shechitah, lies with the owner (since the Torah writes in Vayikra "v'Samach v'Shachat"), the text would be 'Lishchot.'
(d)According to Rav Papi, the text for the Berachah over taking the Lulav is 'Al Netilas Lulav' - because as soon as one picks up the Arba Minim, he has fulfilled the Mitzvah, and 'Le...' implies that the Mitzvah will take place for an extended period of time.
(a)According to what we have just learned, when describing the Berachah over the Lulav, instead of 'Natlo La'tzes Bo, Omer' ... what should the Beraisa have said?
(b)Why then, does the Tana say 'Latzeis'?
(c)According to the Din of the Beraisa, when does one recite 'Shehechiyanu' over the Mitzvos of Lulav and Sukah?
(d)The Gemara concludes that the correct text of the Berachah is 'Al Bi'ur Chametz'. What ramifications does this have with regard to the text of the Berachah over Bris Milah?
(a)When describing the Berachah over the Lulav, the Beraisa should have said 'Natlo, 'Yatza Bo' (instead of 'Natlo Latzes Bo').
(b)Indeed it should, answers the Gemara, and the reason that it says 'Latzes' is - in order to balance 'Nichnas Leishev bah' in the Seifa.
(c)According to the Din of the Beraisa, one recites 'Shehechiyanu' - over the Mitzvos of Lulav and Sukah - when preparing the Arba Minim and when constructing the Sukah, respectively, (however, we follow the later ruling issued by the Rishonim, namely, to recite the Berachah when we first take the Lulav in the morning of Yom-Tov, and when we make Kidush on the first night (respectively).
(d)Since the Gemara rules like Rav Papa, and 'Al Bi'ur Chametz does indeed imply the future just like 'Leva'er Chametz', either text is equally acceptable, and the same applies to the Mitzvah of Milah, even when it is the father who is performing the Mitzvah. (See Tosfos, DH 'Ki Peligi' and 've'Hilchasa').
(a)Rav Yehudah quoting Shmuel, says 'Kol ha'Mitzvos Mevarech Aleihen Over la'Asiyasan'. What does this mean?
(b)The Gemara cites sources from Shmuel and Michah for this. What is the source from the Torah?
(c)Which is the sole exception to this rule, and why is that?
(a)'Kol ha'Mitzvos Mevarech Aleihen Over la'Asiyasan' - means that one is obligated to recite the Berachah just before performing the Mitzvah.
(b)The source from the Torah for this is the Pasuk in Vayishlach "v'Hu Avar Lifneihem" (with regard to Avraham and the angels).
(c)The sole exception to this rule is Tevilah (incorporating washing the hands for Motzi), because sometimes, the person who is Toveling is unfit to recite a Berachah (e.g. a Ba'al Keri, who was not permitted to recite a Berachah until he had Toveled); so they fixed the Berachah for all Tevilos (as well as for washing the hands) after the Mitzvah had been performed. (See also Tosfos DH 'Al ha'Tevilah').
(a)Initially, Shofar was also presented as an exception. Why might this be?
(b)On what grounds is it rejected?
(a)Initially, Shofar was also listed as an exception, and the Berachah was to be recited only after the blowing - because one may perhaps not be able to blow, in which case he will have recited a Berachah Levatalah.
(b)The Gemara rejects this however, on the grounds that, in that case, the same should apply to Shechitah and Milah, where he is likely to botch the Mitzvah, and render the Berachah a Berachah Levatalah. So we see that, since most Ba'alei Tokei'a, Shochtim and Mohalim, achieve what they set out to do, we do not contend with the possibility that they may botch the attempt, rendering the Berachah a Berachah Levatalah.
(a)The Gemara learns the obligation to search for Chametz by the light of a lamp from a series of Derashos 'Metzi'a ("Se'or Lo Yimatzei b'Vateichem") mi'Metzi'a, u'Metzi'a me'Chipus, v'Chipus mi'Chipus, v'Chipus mi'Neros, v'Neros mi'Ner. It is obvious that these Derashos are only an Asmachta. Which incident would one connect with ...
1. ... the second 'Metzi'a' and with the first 'Chipus'?
2. ... the second 'Chipus' and the first 'Neros'?
(b)'Ner' refers to the Pasuk in Mishlei "Ner Hash-m Nishmas Adam, Chofes Kol Chadrei Baten". Why do we need this last Pasuk? Why can we not learn it from the Neros of Yerushalayim?
(a)One would connect the
1. ... the second 'Metzi'a' and the first 'Chipus' - with the search for the goblet in Binyamin's sack (in Miketz).
2. ... the second 'Chipus' and the first 'Neros' - with the Pasuk in Tzefanyah, which describes how Hash-m will search Yerushalayim for Tzadikim with lamps.
(b)We would not have learnt the Mitzvah of searching for Chametz from the search of Yerushalayim, since Hash-m may have done this more casually, using smaller lights, whereas the search for Chametz must be done thoroughly and therefore needs stronger ones.