(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Pesachim 44


(a) Having established that Ze'iri (who adds Se'or to the list of 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur') holds like Rebbi Eliezer, what will he say (with regard to Heter Mitztaref le'Isur) by Chametz on Pesach?

(b) Then why does he make a point of specifically mentioning Se'or?

(a) If a Pesul-Yom touches any part of a Terumah-stew containing Chulin spices, he renders the entire stew, Tamei.
What will be the Din in the reverse case, if he touches the spices in a Chulin-stew containing Terumah spices?

(b) Rabah bar bar Chanah ascribes the fact that he is Chayav for subsequently eating it (and that the Terumah is not Batel), to the fact that a Zar receives Malkos for eating a k'Zayis.
What does Abaye attempt to prove from here?

(c) What does Rav Dimi answer him?

(d) What is a 'k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas Peras'?

(a) What is the source for the Shiur of 'k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas Peras'?

(b) In that case, why do the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi Eliezer and exempt one from Malkos for eating Kutach ha'Bavli?

(c) Will someone who eats a dishful of Kutach ha'Bavli in one sitting be Chayav?

(a) If two mortars full of spice, one of Chulin, the other of Terumah, spill into two pots, one of Chulin and the other, of Terumah, we assume that it was the Terumah that fell into the Terumah, and the Chulin into the Chulin. Why us that?

(b) But how can the Beraisa say that? Having just established that a 'k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas Peras' is d'Oraysa, how can the Beraisa be lenient by Terumah, which is an Isur d'Oraysa - which even carries with it a punishment of Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim?

(c) And how will we explain a similar Beraisa, which issues the same lenient ruling when two Sa'ah of grain, one of Chulin and one of Terumah, fell into two boxes, one of Chulin and one of Terumah?

Answers to questions



(a) Rebbi Yochanan and Ze'iri (on 43b) learn from "Mishras" by Nazir, that 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur' by Nazir. The Beraisa learns 'Ta'am k'Ikar' from there.
What is the difference between 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur' and 'Ta'am k'Ikar'?

(b) How do we reconcile Rebbi Yochanan and Ze'iri with the Beraisa? How can we learn both things from "Mishras"?

(c) Using the Isur of Kil'ayim as an example of Isur, the Chachamim extend 'Ta'am k'Ikar' to all other Isurim from a three point Kal va'Chomer.
What are the three points in which Kil'ayim is more stringent than wine to a Nazir?

(d) Which of these three points is not applicable by Orlah?

(a) So we have established Rebbi Yochanan and Ze'iri like Rebbi Akiva who applies 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur' by Nazir.
Why may it not necessarily be the Rebbi Akiva of the Mishnah in Nazir, who says 'Nazir she'Sharah Pito ba'Yayin, ve'Yesh Bo Letzaref Kedei k'Zayis, Chayav'? How might one interpret this other than by 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur'?

(b) If Rebbi Akiva is referring to the wine alone, then why does he give the Shiur as a k'Zayis, should he not have said 'a Revi'is'?

(c) How does one measure a k'Zayis by liquid anyway?

(d) The proof that Rebbi Akiva holds of 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur' by Nazir lies in a Beraisa.
What does he say there with regard to a Nazir who soaked his bread in wine?

(a) In the above case of a Nazir who soaked his bread in wine, did the wine spread right across the k'Zayis of bread or only across a part of it, and why must we say that?

(b) What will the Rabbanan say?

(c) From where does Rebbi Akiva learn 'Ta'am k'Ikar'?

(d) Why do the Rabbanan decline to learn 'Ta'am k'Ikar' from Basar be'Chalav?

(a) What is unique about Basar be'Chalav? Is it the fact that the two individual ingredients are permitted, and only become Asur when they are cooked?

(b) Then what is its unique characteristic?

(c) So how can Rebbi Akiva argue with such a powerful Sevara? How can he learn other Isurim from Basar be'Chalav?

(d) So what *is* his source for 'Ta'am k'Ikar'?

(a) When the Torah prescribed Hag'alah by the vessels captured from Midyan, was it referring to vessels that had been used that day, or even to vessels that had been used prior to that, and what is the difference between them?

(b) Then why do the Rabbanan decline to learn 'Ta'am k'Ikar' from there?

Answers to questions
Next daf

For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,