ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 6
(a) The King would claim a ten per cent tax of all one's animals and
crops. This was known as Arnona; generally, any animal which is co-shared
by a non-Jew, is Patur from Bechorah.
(b) According to the first Lashon of the Gemara - an animal of Arnona is
subject to Bechorah if the owner *has* the option of paying his debt with
money, but not if he does *not*.
(c) A dough is Peturah from Challah under the same circumstances as an
animal is Peturah from the Bechorah (the latter because the Torah writes
in Bamidbar "Ki Li Kol Bechor *be'Yisrael*, and the former, because the
Torah writes in Korach, "Reshis Arisosei*chem*"). Consequently, a dough of
Arnona ought to be exempt from Chalah, just like an animal.
(d) However, whereas by an animal of Arnona, everyone knows that this
animal is jointly-owned by the King, this is not the case by a dough of
Arnona. Consequently, one is Chayav to separate Chalah from it because of
(a) One is not obligated to destroy the Chametz that a gentile brings into
(b) If the gentile deposited the Chametz with him, then he is obligated to
destroy it - provided he accepted responsibility for it (as we explained
on the previous Daf). Nor is he obligated to destroy the Chametz if he
designated a place for the gentile to leave it, as long as he did *not*
accept responsibility for it (according to Tosfos DH 'Yichad', even if he
*did*). The reason for this is because then it is as if the gentile was
simply leaving his Chametz in his own house.
(c) When the Beraisa quoted "Lo Yimatzei" - it either refers to the
Reisha, to teach us that once the Jew accepts responsibility for the
Chametz, it is Matzuy Lo, and he is Chayav; or it refers to the Seifa, to
teach us that if the Jew designates a place for the gentile to leave his
Chametz, he is Patur, because the Torah adds "Lo Yimatzei *be'Vateichem*"
- and now that he has designated a place for the gentile, it is no longer
(d) Even though renting does not make one the owner, lending or renting a
room to a gentile remove the Isur of having Chametz in one's possession -
because the Chametz is not Matzuy be'Yado (available to him).
(a) If someone discovers Chametz in his house on Yom-Tov - he must cover
it with an overturned vessel, in order that he should not come to eat it.
(b) In the interim, he will not transgress the La'avin of 'Ba'al Yera'eh'
and 'Bal Yimatze' - since he already made Bitul Chametz on the fourteenth
(c) He is not permitted to burn it, because the Torah only permits
lighting a fire and cooking etc., when it is for Ochel Nefesh (i.e. for
the personal use of a Jew, but not when it is purely for the sake of a
Mitzvah) - as we explained on 5a. (question 5c).
(d) It not necessary to cover Chametz that belongs to Hekdesh - because,
seeing as people tend to keep away from Hekdesh anyway, there is little
likelihood that he will come to eat it.
(a) If a Jew is landed with the Chametz that a non-Jew deposited by him -
he must put up a Mechitzah of ten Tefachim in front of it.
(b) We are speaking when he did not accept responsibility for the Chametz
- otherwise, he would not be permitted to retain it over Pesach.
(a) Someone who goes overseas ...
1. ... within thirty days of Pesach - is *obligated* to search for Chametz
prior to leaving.
(b) Rava argued that someone who intended to return home on Pesach, would
be obligated to search for Chametz before his departure - even if he were
to leave round about Rosh Hashanah time.
2. ... earlier than that - is *not*.
(c) So he re-words the restriction to pertain to the Seifa - Someone who
leaves prior to thirty days before Pesach, is Patur from Bedikas Chametz
only if he does *not* intend to return on Pesach; if he *does*, he is
Chayav to search for Chametz irrespective of when he leaves.
(d) Similarly, if someone turns his room (which has not been searched for
Chametz) into a storehouse - prior to thirty days before Pesach, filling
it with grain (that is definitely not Chametz) - he is not obligated to
search for Chametz before doing so. But that is only if he does not intend
to return on Pesach. If he does, then he is obligated to make Bedikas
Chametz before pouring in the grain.
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa says 'Sho'alin ve'Dorshin be'Hilchos ha'Pesach
kodem ha'Pesach Sheloshim Yom'.
1. 'Sho'alin' means that the Rav must give precedence to Sha'alos
regarding Hilchos Pesach over and above other Sha'alos.
(c) The Tana learns this from Moshe Rabeinu, who stood on Pesach (meaning
the fourteenth of Nisan, when they brought the Korban Pesach), and warned
them about the Halachos of Pesach Sheni (which was due to take place on
the fourteenth of Iyar - thirty days later).
2. 'Dorshin' means that the Derashah within thirty days of Pesach should
be relevant to the Dinim of Pesach.
(a) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel counters that there is no proof from there.
Perhaps Moshe chose to instruct them about Pesach Sheni *then*, not
because of any principle, but because it was convenient to teach the Dinim
of Pesach Sheni together with those of Pesach Rishon.According to him, one
is obligated to begin with the Halachos of Pesach fourteen days before
(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's source cannot be the Pasuk "ha'Chodesh
ha'Zeh Lachem" - because it is not clear that this Pasuk was said on Rosh
Chodesh; perhaps Hashem said it to Moshe on the fourth or the fifth of the
(a) We learn from the fact that the Pasuk in Bamidbar was said in Iyar,
whilst the Pasuk in Be'ha'aloscha was said in Nisan - that 'Ein Mukdam
u'Me'uchar ba'Torah' (the Torah does not *necessarily* follow a
chronological order), though as a rule, it does.
(b) Rav Papa proves that it is impossible to apply this principle in *one*
Inyan - because otherwise, how could we ever Darshan a 'K'lal u'F'rat'?
How do we know that it is not a P'rat u'Ch'lal?
(c) Those who maintain that we can learn a 'K'lal u'F'rat even when they
are distant from each other - mean that they are a Pasuk or two apart, but
in the same Inyan.
(a) 'ha'Bodek Tzarich she'Yevatel' cannot be because he may have
overlooked some crumbs of less than a Kezayis - because crumbs (of less
than a Kezayis) do not require Bitul. They are Batel automatically, and
are not subject to 'Bal Yera'eh' and 'Bal Yimatzei'.
(b) We know that crumbs do not adopt Chashivus as part of the house, which
is Chashuv - because we have a precedent for this in a Beraisa, which
renders end-of-season figs and grapes (which are not quite ripe) Hefker
and Patur from Ma'asros (unless the owner specifically wants them), in
spite of the fact that he is guarding his field because of other trees. So
we see that a species which is not important does not adopt Chashivus
together with the field or the house in which they are currently situated.
(c) Bitul is necessary - because one may find a nice loaf or cake on
Pesach which he decides he would like to retain, and unless he made Bitul
beforehand, he would transgress 'Bal Yera'eh' and 'Bal Yimatzei' every
second from the time he finds it.
(d) It would not help to be Mevatel that fine loaf when he finds it -
because Bitul is ineffective after the time of Isur. Why is that? Because
Chametz after the time of Isur (when it becomes Asur be'Hana'ah) is no
longer one's own - except to transgress 'Bal Yera'eh' and 'Bal Yimatzei'.
(a) If someone digs a pit in the public domain - that too, the Torah
places in his Reshus, just in order to be obligated to pay for all damages
(even though technically, it is not really his).
(b) Chazal did not fix Bitul in the fourth or the fifth hour, since these
are neither the time when the Chametz becomes Asur, nor the time when one
destroys it, one would be likely to forget it. So they fixed the time for
Bitul Chametz at night-time, straight after the Bedikah, when one is
likely to remember to perform the Mitzvah. (The Rosh, Si'man 9, explains
that they also fixed the beginning of the sixth hour, which is the time of
(c) The sixth hour is not eligible for Bitul Chametz, since it is already
Asur be'Hana'ah mi'de'Rabbanan, and is no longer in one's Reshus to be