ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 45
(a) Rebbi Akiva cannot use the Kal va'Chomer to extend 'Heter Mitztaref
le'Isur' from Nazir to all Isurim in the Torah - because the Pasuk by Chatas
also teaches us 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur', and 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im
k'Echad, Ein Melamdin'.
(b) We learn from the Pasuk in Tzav "Kol Asher Yiga *bi'Vesarah* Yikdash" -
that anything (that is fit to become Kadosh) which touches a Chatas and
absorbs from it, adopts the Kedushah of the Chatas.
(c) If a piece of Shelamim touched fat of a Kasher Chatas (see Mosaf Rashi)
- one of which was hot - it must be eaten within the curtains of the Azarah,
by male Kohanim only and only on the day it is brought plus the following
(a) The Rabbanan require "Mishras" by Nazir for 'Ta'am k'Ikar' (which we
extend to the entire Torah), and "Kol Asher Yiga" etc. by Chatas for 'Heter
Mitztaref le'Isur' (from which we cannot learn Chulin, since Chulin
mi'Kodshim Lo Yalfinan).
(b) Rebbi Akiva, on the other hand, *does* consider them 'Sh'nei Kesuvim
ha'Ba'im k'Echad' - because, according to him, both Pesukim are speaking
about 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur', making them 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im
k'Echad' - ve'Ein Melamdin.
(c) According to him, we need the Pasuk by Nazir, because 'Chulin mi'Kodshim
Lo Yalfinan'; but we do not need the Pasuk by Chatas, since we could learn
it from Nazir, making it a case of 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad'.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Naso "mi'Kol Asher Ye'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin"
- that all Isurei Nazir combine to make up the Shiur k'Zayis.
The Rabbanan of Rebbi Eliezer do not learn 'Ta'am k'Ikar' from Gi'ulei
Nochrim (like Rebbi Akiva), because they hold that Gi'ulei Nochrim is a
Chidush (like the Rabbanan); nor do they learn it from "Mishras" (like the
Rabbanan), because they use "Mishras" for Heter Mitztaref le'Isur (like
(b) According to Rebbi Akiva who learns *'Heter* Mitztaref le'Isur' - we
would not know from a Kal va'Chomer that *Isur* Mitztaref le'Isur - because
whereas the former is speaking specifically when they are eaten
simultaneously, the latter is speaking even when they are eaten one after
the other (provided they are eaten within the time limit of 'Kedei Achilas
(a) According to the Tana of our Mishnah, one is obligated to destroy the
dough from the cracks of a dish - wherever there is at least a k'Zayis in
(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel restricts the obligation to - where the dough
has *not* been placed there to strengthen the dish, but if it *has*, then
one is not obligated to destroy it, even if there is more than a k'Zayis in
(c) We can deduce from the second Lashon (where Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel
restricts the leniency in the Seifa, which permits retaining less than a
k'Zayis, to when the dough was put there to strengthen the dish) - that
wherever there is *more* than a k'Zayis, it must be destroyed even if it was
placed there to strengthen the dish.
(a) Rav Huna resolves the two contradictory Beraisos, one which holds like
the *first* Lashon of Shmuel, the other, like the *second* - by erasing the
more lenient Beraisa (the one which holds like the first Lashon).
(b) The Tana Kama says that a block of yeast that has gone bad must
nevertheless be destroyed - because it can be ground and used as yeast in
(c) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar says that dough that is designated for another
use (even if it is more than a k'Zayis) becomes Batel - and he will be the
author of the Beraisa which holds like Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's first
Lashon, which permits even *more* than a k'Zayis of dough that is being used
to strengthen the dish.
(d) Rav Yosef's explanation answers the discrepancy by *more* than a k'Zayis
that is put there to strengthen the dish, Abaye points out. He does not
however, address the discrepancy by *less* than a k'Zayis in the case of a
dough that was *not* placed there to strengthen the dish, which the first
Beraisa permits, whereas we have no proof that Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar (who
is only lenient by dough that was specifically designated for another
purpose) will permit any dough that still stands to be eaten.
(a) In fact, the Gemara concludes, there are *three* locations, and *three*
Dinim: 1. the base of the dish, which is a real Makom Lishah (and even a
k'Zayis need not be removed). 2. The walls of the dish, which the first
Beraisa refers to as 'she'Lo be'Makom Lishah' (though it is partially used
during the Lishah, and where less than a k'Zayis is therefore permitted).
3. The outside of the dish, which is not a Makom Lishah at all (and which
the second Beraisa refers to as 'she'Lo be'Makom Lishah') and where even
less than a k'Zayis of dough is forbidden. Note: The first Beraisa does not
address the outside of the dish at all; nor does the second Beraisa address
(b) Rav Ashi adds the top edge to the area of she'Lo be'Makom Lishah. Nor is
this so obvious as it would at first appear - because sometimes, in the
course of the kneading, the dough moves to the top of the dish, and the
baker finds that he is actually kneading on the top edge of the dish.
(a) Rav Nachman quoting Rav, who rules like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, will
not require the block of dough to be cemented, since Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar
permits it as it is. In that case, this ruling clashes with Rav Yitzchak bar
Ashi, who, also quoting Rav, rules 'Im Tach Paneha be'Tit, Batlah' - from
which we can infer that, if not, it is not Batel.
(b) Clearly, the Gemara concludes, Rav Nachman and Rav Yitzchak bar Ashi are
at loggerheads over what Rav said, since each one quotes him differently.
(c) Two half-k'Zeisim in a dish combine to make up a k'Zayis - if they are
joined by a strip of dough thick enough that, if one were to pick it up,
both half-k'Zeisim would come up with it.
(d) If the two half-k'Zeisim of Chametz are found on the floor of the house,
they will have the Din of a k'Zayis, even if they are not connected -
because sometimes, they are placed together in the process of sweeping.
(a) The Gemara's third Sha'aleh - is what the Din will be by two half-
k'Zeisim in two rooms, one within the other.
(b) The three Sha'alos are dependent upon each other: Assuming that by two
rooms on two stories that the two half-k'Zeisim do not combine, that is
because it is unlikely that they will ever fall in the same place, perhaps a
half-k'Zayis in a room and a half-k'Zayis in an adjoining porch (where they
are more likely to land up together, seeing as one tends to go from one to
the other) will combine. And even assuming that in that case, they are
considered one k'Zayis, that is because, as we explained, the two areas are
constantly used together, this may not be the case, by two half-k'Zeisim in
two rooms, one within each other, which (although they are more frequently
used than two rooms on two stories) are less frequently used than a room and
the adjoining porch.
(a) According to the Tana Kama, moldy bread loses its status of bread ...
(b) Rebbi Nasan maintains that - the moment it becomes unfit for a human
being, it loses its status as food even regarding Tum'as Ochlin.
- ... regarding Tum'as Ochlin - when a *dog* will no longer eat it.
- ... regarding the prohibition of burning Terumah Tehorah together Terumah Temei'ah - already when it becomes unfit for a *human-being* to eat.
(a) According to the Tana Kama, flour that is placed into a tanning-bowl at
least three days before Pesach becomes so smelly that it is no longer
necessary to destroy it. This time period will apply whether there are
already skins in the bowl or not.
(b) Rebbi Nasan holds - that, if there were skins in the bowl, then even if
the flour was placed in the bowl shortly before Pesach, the flour loses its
(c) Rava rules like Rebbi Nasan, even if the flour was placed one day and
even one hour before Pesach.