PESACHIM 51 (4 Elul) - Dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Chaim Yisachar (ben Yaakov) Smulewitz of Cleveland on his Yahrzeit, by his daughter and son in law, Jeri & Eli Turkel of Raanana, Israel.
PESACHIM 51 - Dedicated by Dr. Alain Bitton of Geneva, Switzerland, towards a Refu'ah Sheleimah for his mother, Rina bat Fibi, and in memory of his aunt, Mazal bat Freha, who passed away on 7 Adar.


(a)Rav Yosef ruled that a Zar (a non-Kohen) should eat the Chalah which the residents of Chuzai separated from their rice in front of them (i.e. to demonstrate to them that their Chalah was totally invalid). What did Abaye ask him from the Beraisa of 'Devarim ha'Mutarim va'Acherim Nohagin Bahen Isur' ... ?

(b)Rav Yosef tried to answer that "that* was confined to Kutim (who tend to look for leniencies), but did not apply to anybody else. On what grounds does the Gemara reject this?

(c)What was Rav Ashi's final ruling in this matter? On what authority did he rule leniently at all?


(a)Abaye queried Rav Yosef's ruling (that a Zar should eat the Chalah which they had separated from their rice) - from the Beraisa 'Devarim ha'Mutarim va'Acherim Nohagin Bahen Isur, I Atah Rashai Lehatiran Bifeneihem'.

(b)The Gemara rejects Rav Yosef's contention that the Beraisa applies only to Kutim, but not to the Bnei Chuza'i - on the grounds that the Bnei Chuza'i, like the Kutim, also used to search for leniencies, so that the same stringencies that applied to the Kutim, also applied to them.

(c)Rav Ashi therefore ruled that, if they ate mostly rice, then a Zar should not eat the Chalah in front of them, in order that they should not forget the concept of Chalah; but that if they ate mostly grain, from which they would anyway separate Chalah - which was obviously valid, then a Zar should eat the Chalah that they separated from the rice, though not for the reason that Rav Yosef gave earlier, but because of the suspicion that they might just separate Ma'aser from the grain on to the rice (Min ha'Chiyuv Al ha'Petur) or vice-versa (Min ha'Petur Al ha'Chiyuv).


(a)In Kevul, it was customary for two brothers not to bathe in the same bathe-house simultaneously. What happened when Yehudah and Hillel, sons of Raban Gamliel, did so? Did they take any notice of the complainers?

(b)A similar episode took place with the two brothers in Biri, with regard to the wearing of Kurdekison on Shabbos. What are 'Kurdekison', and why did the Birians maintain that they should not be worn on Shabbos?

(c)And a third episode took place in Acco, regarding sitting on gentile benches on Shabbos. Why were the inhabitants of Acco particular not to do that?

(d)How does Rav Chisda explain all these cases, where Yehudah and Hillel, Raban Gamliel's sons, declined to correct the people on their mistaken Minhag, because of 'Devarim ha'Mutarim, va'Acheirim Nohagin Bahen Isur, I Ata Rashai Lehatiran Bifeneihem' - despite the fact that they were not Kutim?


(a)When Yehudah and Hillel, sons of Raban Gamliel bathed together in the bathhouse in Kevul - the residents of Kevul began to talk. Immediately, Hillel went to out the outer-room of the bathhouse.

(b)Kurdekison are light-weight shoes which the Birians considered should not be worn on Shabbos - because they might slip off one's foot, and one will come to carry them four Amos in the street.

(c)The gentiles used to place goods for sale on the benches in question, and the residents of Acco were afraid that anyone who used them would be suspected of doing business on Shabbos.

(d)People who live far from the main centers, like the inhabitants of Kevul, Biri and Acco, had little contact with Talmidei-Chachamim, and were therefore considered like Kutim (inasmuch as they tended to search for leniencies in Halachah), and it was therefore forbidden to release their self-imposed Chumros in their presence. (Note: It was not however, obligatory for someone from another town to adopt their Chumros when not in their presence, since the Minhagim in question were not established by the Chachamim (Rosh, end of Siman 3).


(a)With which two relatives, besides one's father and father-in-law, may one not bathe, and what is the reason for this?

(b)Which two of these does Rebbi Yehudah permit, and why?

(c)Why did the residents of Kevul prohibit bathing with one's brother?

(d)Another Beraisa adds a Talmid with his Rebbe to the list. Is this prohibition absolute?


(a)One may not bathe with one's father or father-in-law, with one's mother's husband or with one's sister's husband - because, in the former two cases, one may come to think that that is where he and his wife came from, and in the latter two, one may come to similar vulgar thoughts.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah permits bathing with one's father or one's mother's husband, out of respect for them i.e. so that he should be available to assist them, should they need him It may also mean that, due to the respect that one has for them, such thoughts will not enter his mind.

(c)The residents of Kevul prohibited going with one's brother - because it is a similar relationship to that of one's sister's husband.

(d)It is only forbidden for a Talmid to bathe with his Rebbe, as long as his Rebbe does not need him.


(a)What is d'Ayatra? Is it Shuman or Chelev?

(b)Rabah bar bar Chanah was eating Daytera in Bavel, when two local Talmidei-Chachamim came to visit him. What did he do that upset them?

(c)What did Rebbi Avuha mean when he said to them 'Shavinchu k'Kuta'i!'


(a)An animal's stomach is shaped roughly like a bow with a string. The fat on the bow section is Chelev and is forbidden, whereas the fat on the string section is Shuman and is permitted. d'Ayatra (the Aramaic equivalent of 'shel Yeser' - meaning' that of the string') is the fat on the string which the Bnei Eretz Yisrael permit, but which the Bnei Bavel forbid.

(b)When two local Talmidei-Chachamim came to visit Rabah bar bar Chanah - he hid the d'Ayatra.

(c)Hiding the d'Ayatra, which he was permitted to eat (as we shall soon see) was something that one only did from Kutim or people who for a number of reasons, were like Kutim (as we saw in the people Sugyos), but not in front of Talmidei-Chachamim. That is why Rav Avuha said to the two Amora'im 'Shavinchu k'Kuta'i!' (See Rosh, Siman 8, who vindicates Rabah bar bar Chanah, because of Machlokes, in which case, it is not clear what Rav Avuha meant).


(a)In order to reconcile Rabah bar bar Chanah with our Mishnah (which teaches that one is obligated to adopt the strict Minhagim of the local inhabitants), Abaye differentiates between traveling from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel and any other combination. What is the difference?

(b)How does Rav Ashi answer the Kashya, even assuming there is no difference between Eretz Yisrael and Bavel?

(c)What did Rabah bar bar Chanah tell his son regarding d'Aytera?

(d)What did he quote Rebbi Yochanan ben Elazar as saying with regard to eating wild cabbages in the Shemitah, that clashes with what he himself just said?


(a)In the area of Halachah, the people in Bavel, who did not have Semichah, were subservient to the people in Eretz Yisrael, who did. Consequently, visitors from Eretz Yisrael were not obligated to follow the Chumros of Bavel.

(b)Rav Ashi explains that Rabah bar bar Chanah was not bound to adhere to the Chumros of Bavel, because he intended to return to Eretz Yisrael, whereas our Mishnah (i.e. the case of Chumrei Makom she'Halach l'Sham - see Tosfos DH 'Rabah') speaks specifically about someone whose intention was to remain there).

(c)Rabah bar bar Chanah told his son that he personally, who had seen Rebbi Yochanan eating d'Aytera, could be lenient and eat it even not in Rebbi Yochanan's presence; whereas he (his son) who had not seen him doing so, should not even eat it in his (Rabah bar bar Chanah's) presence.

(d)Rebbi Yochanan himself quoted Rebbi Yochanan ben Elazar as issuing him with instructions that even though he himself, having seen Rebbi Shimon ben Yocha'i eating wild cabbages that had grown in the Shemitah-year after the time of Bi'ur, was permitted to do likewise, he (Rabah bar bar Chanah), who had not seen him doing so, was only permitted to eat them in his presence, but not otherwise. And these two rulings are contradictory.



(a)Sefichim are forbidden in the Shemitah year. What are 'Sefichim'?

(b)Rebbi Shimon permits Sefichim of cabbages. Why? Is that before or after the Zman ha'Bi'ur?

(c)What do the Rabanan say and what is their reason?

(d)Are the opinions of Rebbi Shimon and the Rabanan their own?


(a)'Sefichim' are wild seeds that grew without being planted.

(b)Rebbi Shimon permits Sefichim of cabbages after the Zman ha'Bi'ur - because the roots (which are above the ground) do not die, but remain in the fields throughout the winter for the wild animals to eat.

(c)The Rabanan forbid even the Sefichim of cabbages - because of all other Sefichim.

(d)The Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon and the Rabanan is not their own - they are arguing over what Rebbi Akiva said.


(a)What problem does Rebbi Akiva have with the Pasuk in Behar "Hen Lo Nizra, v'Lo Ne'esof es Tevu'aseinu"?

(b)How does he resolve it?


(a)Rebbi Akiva has a problem with the Pasuk "Hen Lo Nizra, v'Lo Ne'esof es Tevu'aseinu" - because if one has not sown, from where will the produce grow?

(b)From here Rebbi Akiva derives that Sefichim are forbidden - because it is from the Sefichim that the produce grows, even when no seeds were sown.


(a)What is the problem with the Seifa of our Mishnah, which seemingly obligates someone from a place where work is not done, to do work in a place where it is, to avoid Machlokes?

(b)Abaye answers simply 'a'Reisha'. What does he mean?

(c)How does Rava resolve the Kashya even if the reason of Machlokes refers to the Seifa, as well?


(a)The Seifa of our Mishnah seemingly obligates someone from a place where work is not done to do work in a place where it is, to avoid Machlokes. But what about Chumrei Makom she'Yatza mi'Sham? How can he do work, when it is forbidden to do so in his home town?

(b)When Abaye answers 'a'Reisha' - he means that 'Mipnei ha'Machlokes' only applies to the Reisha: 'ha'Holech mi'Makom she'Osin l'Makom she'Ein Osin', in which case he is obligated to desist from work because of Machlokes, but not to do work in the reverse case.

(c)According to Rava, 'Mipnei ha'Machlokes' refers to the Seifa - but must be amended to read 'Ein ba'Zu Mipnei Shinuy ha'Machlokes', meaning that, even though one is obligated to adopt the Chumros of the local place because of Machlokes, desisting from work in accordance with his own Minhag will not lead to Machlokes (because everyone else is working and he is not) - since there are always people who are not working (because they are out of a job, for example), so he will not evoke any suspicion by not working.


(a)May someone in Chutz la'Aretz who happens to know that it was the first day which the Sanhedrin fixed, do Melachah on the second day of Yom-Tov ...

1. ... if he lives in a town?

2. ... if he is spending Yom-Tov in an uninhabited area?



1. If someone in Chutz la'Aretz happens to know that it was the first day which the Sanhedrin fixed, may not do Melachah on the second day of Yom-Tov in an inhabited area, because of Machlokes.

2. He may however, do Melachah on the second day of Yom-Tov, if he is spending Yom-Tov in an uninhabited area.