PESACHIM 12-15 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the sixth Yahrzeit of her father, Reb Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rebbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study, which was so important to him, during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.


(a)Rav Nachman, quoting Rav, rules like Rebbi Yehudah, that Chametz is Mutar b'Hana'ah in the fifth hour, but may not be eaten. What problem does the Gemara have with this, from the Mishnah in 'Kol Sha'ah' - 'Kol Sha'ah she'Mutar Le'echol, Ma'achil'?

(b)The Gemara answers that, due to its wording, the author of the Mishnah must be Raban Gamliel. What does this mean? What does Raban Gamliel say?

(c)Usually, we have a principle 'Halachah k'Divrei ha'Machri'a'. Why is Raban Gamliel not considered a Machri'a?

(d)Alternatively, Rav holds like the Tana of the Beraisa, who rules like Rebbi Elazar ben Yehudah Ish Bartosa, quoting Rebbi Yehoshua. What does he say?


(a)The problem with Rav (who rules like Rebbi Yehudah, that Chametz is Mutar b'Hana'ah in the fifth hour, but may not be eaten) from the Mishnah in Kol Sha'ah (which states 'Kol Sha'ah she'Mutar Le'echol, Ma'achil') - is that this Mishnah (which is a Stam - which, when it follows a Machlokes [as it does in this case] is generally Halachah) seems to hold like Rebbi Meir, that eating Chametz is permitted during the fifth hour.

(b)If the Tana in Kol Sha'ah held like Rebbi Meir, he ought to have said 'Kol Sha'ah she'Ochel, Ma'achil'. Why did he add the word 'she'Mutar' - unless it is because he holds like Raban Gamliel, who permits Kohanim to eat Chametz of Terumah in the fifth hour; and what he is saying is that, as long as some people (Kohanim) are permitted to eat Chametz, everyone is permitted to feed it to their animals (or to derive any other benefit from it).

(c)'Halachah k'Divrei ha'Machri'a' - applies only when the two Tana'im between whom the third Tana is making the compromise, have indicated that they with the Machria's argument, but do not abide by it. In that case, the Machri'a would hold like each of the opinions in one point, making it a majority opinion (e.g. in our case, had Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah both mentioned Terumah and Chulin in their statements, then Raban Gamliel would, in fact, be agreeing with Rebbi Meir by Terumah, and with Rebbi Yehudah by Terumah). But now that they did not mention Terumah, not only is Raban Gamliel a third opinion, but also a minority one. (See Tosfos D.H. 'Raban', as to why the Halachah should not anyway be like Raban Gamliel [or Rebbi Meir] - even though his opinion appears in a Stam Mishnah.

(d)Rebbi Elazar ben Yehudah Ish Bartosa in the Beraisa, quoting Rebbi Yehoshua, says - that when the fourteenth of Nisan falls on Shabbos, all Chametz must be destroyed on Friday, including Terumah (whether it is Tamei, a Safek or Tahor), and that one only leaves over sufficient Tahor Terumah for two meals. Clearly, he follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Meir, who make no distinction between Terumah and Chulin.


(a)The Rabanan maintain that one should not destroy Terumah Tehorah, in case one finds Kohanim who are willing to eat it. What is their counter-argument to Rebbi Elazar ben Yehudah, who claims that, if, by this late hour (Shabbos, Erev Pesach), they have not found Kohanim to eat the Terumah-Chametz, they will be most unlikely to find any now?

(b)How does Rebbi Elazar ben Yehudah counter that from Teluyos (which are forbidden)?

(c)What do the Chachamim answer to that?

(d)Why is the fact that the Tana in the Beraisa rules like Rebbi Elazar ben Yehudah no proof for Rav, who rules like Rebbi Yehudah that even Terumas-Chametz is forbidden in the fifth hour (like Rebbi Yehudah)?


(a)The Rabanan counter Rebbi Elazar ben Yehudah's claim (that, if, by this late hour [Shabbos, Erev Pesach], they had not managed to find Kohanim to eat the Terumah-Chametz, they would be most unlikely to find any now) - by pointing out the possibility of Kohanim having arrived within the Techum Shabbos before Shabbos came in, and who will now be available to eat the Terumah-Chametz.

(b)In that case, Rebbi Elazar ben Yehudah counters, why are Teluyos not also permitted, on the grounds that maybe Eliyahu will come and declare them to be Tahor (see Kovetz Shi'urim as to how Eliyahu can be believed to issue rulings).

(c)The Chachamim reply with the tradition that Eliyahu will not come on Erev Shabbos or Erev Yom-Tov, in order not to interfere with the Shabbos preparations.

(d)The Tana in the Beraisa, who rules like Rebbi Elazar ben Yehudah - does not necessarily hold like Rebbi Yehudah (with regard to prohibiting the eating of Chametz in the fifth hour). Why not? Because that ruling may be restricted to the Machlokes regarding the burning of Terumah Tehorah, which Rebbi Elazar requires to be done on Friday, and the Rabanan do not; but as far as the eating of Chametz is concerned, the Tana could just as well hold like Rebbi Meir.


(a)The Gemara suggests that Rebbi too, holds like Rebbi Elazar ben Yehudah. On which episode (involving Yochanan Chakuka'ah) is this suggestion based?

(b)How does Rav Yosef reject that contention?

(c)If Rebbi really follows the opinion of Rebbi Meir, then why did he instruct Yochanan Chakuka'ah to sell the Chametz? Why could he not buy it himself?


(a)Someone deposited a pouchful of Chametz with Yochanan Chakuka'ah. On Erev Pesach, mice bit a hole in it and the Chametz was spilling out. For the first four hours, Rebbi ruled that he should wait, in case the owner arrived to fetch it; then, in the fifth hour, he instructed him to sell it in the market, ostensibly to gentiles (but not to Jews - like Rebbi Yehudah).

(b)Rav Yosef rejects that contention - because, who says that Rebbi meant that he should sell the Chametz to gentiles? Perhaps he permitted selling it even to Jews.

(c)Even assuming that Rebbi followed the opinion of Rebbi Meir, he would not have permitted Yochanan Chakuka'ah to buy the Chametz himself - because a person is not allowed to do anything that causes suspicion to fall on him.


(a)The source for this is a Beraisa which deals with a Gabai Tzedakah. What does the Beraisa say?

(b)From which Pasuk in Mas'ei is this concept derived?


(a)The Beraisa prohibits a Gabai Tzedakah from changing Tzedakah coins under his charge, or the Gabai of the soup-kitchen to buy excess food; both of these must be done via a third person.

(b)This is derived from the Pasuk "vi'Heyisem Neki'im me'Hashem u'mi'Yisrael".


(a)Rav Yosef just suggested that Rebbi instructed Yochanan Chakuka'ah to sell the Terumas-Chametz to Jews - like Rebbi Meir. In fact, he forgot what he had originally said, before he became ill, and forgot his learning. How did he originally explain Rebbi's ruling?

(b)What is the connection between Rebbi's ruling here and that of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in Bava Metzi'a, with regard to a deposit of corn that is going bad?

(c)Why might even the Rabanan, who argue there with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, agree with Rebbi in our case, that one may sell the Chametz in the fifth hour?


(a)According to Rav Yosef's original interpretation of Rebbi - Rebbi instructed Yochanan Chakuka'ah to sell the Chametz to not-Jews (and not to Jews - like the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah).

(b)Rav Yosef connects Rebbi's ruling here (to sell the Chametz in order to spare the owner a loss) and that of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who rules in Bava Metzi'a that if a deposit of grain is going bad, the guardian should sell it to prevent the owner any further loss.

(c)The Rabanan only argue there with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, Abaye quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying, by a small regular loss. That is when they say that the guardian should not sell the grain. But once the losses exceed the regular level, even they agree that the grain should be sold - and that would certainly be the case here, where the owner was about to lose his entire sack of flour.



(a)Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, maintains that they would place two Pasul Todah-loaves on the shelter surrounding the Har Habayis. Is the correct text 'Al Gav ha'Itztava' or 'Al Gabei ha'Itztava' and why is that?

(b)What did Rachba testify (regarding the Itztavah) in the name of his Rebbe, Rav Yehudah?


(a)'Al Gav ha'Itztava' means on the seat of the shelter. Now what is the point of putting the loaves there where they will not be seen by the residents of Yerushalayim? So the correct text must therefore be 'Al Gabei ha'Itztava' which means on top of the shelter, where they would be clearly visible.

(b)Rachba, quoting his Rebbe, Rav Yehudah, testified that there were in fact, two rows of shelters on the Har ha'Bayis, and not just one.


(a)Why were the breads of the Korban Todah, Pasul?

(b)Why did they have to be brought on the thirteenth of Nisan? Why could they not have been brought on the fourteenth?


(a)The breads of the Todah were Pasul - because since they could not be brought on the fourteenth (as we shall see immediately), all the people who had arrived in Yerushalayim and who had promised to bring a Korban Todah, had to bring it by the thirteenth. As a result, there would have been a surplus of Todah loaves (including ten Chametz-loaves for each Todah), and it would have been difficult to find eaters for all of them. Consequently, many loaves would have been left until the morning of the fourteenth, when they would have been 'Nosar'.

(b)The loaves could not have been brought on the fourteenth - because they had to be eaten before mid-day, and this would have meant curtailing their allotted time of eating (i.e. the day on which they were brought, plus the following night.


(a)According to Rebbi Yanai, the loaves were not really Pasul. What does that mean? Why are such loaves less Pasul than those which were Pasul b'Linah in the first explanation?

(b)Why could they not just re-place the lost Todah, and bring the breads together with the new one?

(c)Had it been the bread that got lost, they could simply have re-placed it. Why is that?

(d)Rebbi Yanai however, could not have given the above explanation, because, if the Todah was lost, there is no reason why the loaves could not have been redeemed. What did Rebbi Yanai then say, and who must be the author of our Mishnah (i.e. whose opinion does Rebbi Yehudah follow)?


(a)According to Rebbi Yanai, the loaves were Pasul - since the Korban which they accompanied got lost before it was Shechted. This renders the loaves Pasul because they are useless, and not because of a real Pesul.

(b)The bread goes together with the Todah with which it was designated. Consequently, if the Todah got lost, the breads become Pasul.

(c)The bread is secondary to the Todah with which it was designated, but not vice-versa (since the Todah is the Ikar, and the breads, Tafel). Consequently, if the breads got lost, the Todah can be brought with new breads.

(d)What Rebbi Yanai really said was - that our Mishnah speaks when the Todah had already been Shechted (in which case, the loaves can no longer be redeemed, and also become Pasul if they are taken out of Yerushalayim), and the blood spilled (which renders the breads Pasul inasmuch as they can no longer be eaten). This conforms with the opinion of Rebbi, who maintains that the breads of the Todah become sanctified (to prevent their redemption) with Shechitah alone (even though the blood was not sprinkled).


(a)What status do the loaves have prior to the Shechitah of the animal?

(b)According to Rebbi, they adopt Kedushas ha'Guf already after the Shechitah. What does Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon hold?

(c)How do we reconcile Rebbi Yanai's interpretation of our Mishnah, even according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, by establishing the latter like his father?


(a)Prior to the Shechitah of the animal, the designated loaves of the Todah have the status of Kedushas Damim (they belong to Hekdesh for their monetary value, but are not intrinsically holy).

(b)According to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - they only adopt Kedushas ha'Guf after the blood has been sprinkled.

(c)If Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon holds like his father, we can establish our Mishnah when the blood had already been received in the bowl for sprinkling (in which case Rebbi Shimon holds 'Kol ha'Omed Lizerok, k'Zaruk Dami'), and then spilt. The loaves will have adopted Kedushas ha'Guf with the receiving of the blood, but will then have become Pasul (inasmuch as they can no longer be eaten) when the blood spilt.


(a)The Machlokes between Rebbi and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon concerns a case when the Kivsei Atzeres (the two lambs of the communal Shelamim that was brought on Shavu'os) were Shechted Lishman (with the correct intention), but their blood was sprinkled she'Lo Lishman. Does this mean that the sacrifice is invalidated and that it must subsequently be burnt?


(a)If the blood of the Kivsei Atzeres was sprinkled she'Lo Lishman - Yisrael will not have fulfilled their obligation, but the lambs may nevertheless be eaten (as if they were ordinary Shelamim - as is the Din by all Korbanos that were Shechted she'Lo Lishman, with the exception of a Korban Pesach and a Chatas).


(a)Rebbi Elazar in a Beraisa disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah. What kind of Todah-loaves were used according to him?

(b)Aba Shaul in another Beraisa, has a third opinion. According to him, they did not use Todah-loaves to mark the fifth and six hours, but something else. What was it?


(a)According to Rebbi Elazar in a Beraisa - they used two Kasher Todah-loaves, and not Pasul ones.

(b)According to Aba Shaul, they did not use Todah-loaves at all - but two cows that were plowing on Har ha'Mishchah (alias Har ha'Zeisim). When they removed one of them (at the beginning of the fifth hour), everyone knew that they may no longer eat Chametz, and when they removed the second one (at the beginning of the sixth), they knew that they must start burning it.