Previous daf

1)

(a) Ayvu was Rebbi Chiya's brother and Rav's father.

(b) He was the paternal brother of Rebbi Chiya, and his wife, the maternal sister. Consequently, they (Rav's parents) were not blood relatives.

(c) Rebbi Chiya asked Rav - whether Ayvu (his father) was still alive. When he replied that he should rather question him about his mother (Rebbi Chiya's sister), he asked him whether she was indeed alive, at which Rav replied that he should rather ask him about his father. From all this, Rebbi Chiya understood that both his siblings were no longer alive. We learn from Rav how careful one should be not to be the harbinger of bad news.

(d) Rebbi Chiya taught us 1. that a mourner is forbidden to wear shoes; 2. that old (bad) news (after thirty days) only requires one day of mourning; 3. that part of the day is considered like a whole day (at the end of the mourning period) In fact, even one hour is sufficient.

(a) The people commented that the man who would constantly say 'Come, let's go to a judge!' - must have been from the tribe of Dan, about whom the Torah writes in Vayechi "Dan Yadin Amo, ke'Achad Shivtei Yisrael".

(b) And they said that the man who would always sing the praises of the sea-shore - he must be from the tribe of Zevulun, about whom the Torah writes there "Zevulun le'Chof Yamim Yishkon".

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Vayashkem Avraham ba'Boker" (written by the Akeidah) - that Avraham Avinu would get up early to perform Mitzvos. So we learn from him, the principle of 'Zerizin Makdimin le'Mitzvos'.

(b) Since 'Zerizin Makdimin le'Mitzvos' - only begins in the morning (as we see by Avraham), why did Chazal fix the Mitzvah of Bedikas Chametz as early as the night before? Had Or meant light, we might have learnt that 'Or le'Arba'ah-Asar' means from the sixth hour, just one hour before the time that it becomes Asur min ha'Torah, and there would have been no problem in the fisrt place.

(c) Chazal instituted Bedikas Chametz at night-time - a. because most people are at home then (so they will not forget to perform the Mitzvah); 2. because night-time is better for searching (since the Mitzvah is to use a candle, as we shall see later, and of what use is a candle in the day?)

(d) Once the time for Bedikas Chametz arrives - it is forbidden to begin learning Torah.

(a) The Gemara asks whether it is the owner of the house who is obligated to search the house that he rented out on the fourteenth, because it is *his Chametz*, or whether the onus lies on the renter, since the Chametz is in *his possession*.

(b) There is no proof from the Beraisa, which obligates the hirer to affix the Mezuzah - because the onus of Mezuzah lies specifically on the person living in the house (as we derive from the word "Beisecha"), since he is the one who benefits from its protection. Chametz, on the other hand, is only mi'de'Rabbanan, and the Sha'aleh remains on whom did they place the obligation.

(c) It depends, concludes the Gemara (quoting a Beraisa), who has the keys at the beginning of the fourteenth: Whichever of the two has the keys, is obligated to search for Chametz.

5)

(a) If even women, slaves and children (who are not normally eligible to give testimony) are believed to testify on the fourteenth, that the owner of a certain house searched for Chametz the previous night - then it must be, the Gemara contends, because, once the fourteenth enters, the house has a Chazakah that it has been examined.

(b) We are assuming that since most people are reliable when it comes to Bedikas Chametz, he has the Din of a Chaver; the precedent for this is the Beraisa, which assumes the storehouse of grain left by a Chaver when he dies, to be Ma'asered - even if the Miru'ach (flattening of the pile of grain after the winnowing) took place only one day before. Similarly in our case, since everyone is considered a Chaver, he is assumed to have searched his house on the eve of the fourteenth. Consequently, any testimony is merely a formality.

(c) 'ha'Kol Ne'emanim al Bi'ur Chametz' - implies that it is due to the testimony of those concerned, that we assume the house to be be'Chezkas Baduk, and not because of an automatic Chazakah.

(d) Normally, a house may well have a Chezkas Baduk - but we are speaking in a case when there was actually a Chazakah that the owner had *not* searched the house, and the woman, the slave or the child now say that they themselves searched it, and they are believed, because Bedikas Chametz is only mi'de'Rabbanan (see Rashash).

7)

(a) The Isur of eating after mid-day must be min ha'Torah - because had the Torah only forbidden it from nightfall of the fifteenth, then the Rabbanan would have had no reason to forbid it from mid-day. Why not? Because the Rabbanan only issue decrees when there is reason to suspect that people will mistakenly transgress the Torah-law ('Asu Seyag la'Torah'), something which does not apply here, because people do not confuse day and night.

(b) "Ach ba'Yom ha'Rishon Tashbisu" cannot be understood literally - because if it were (and we would only begin destroying Chametz on the *fifteenth*), how would we reconcile it with the Pasuk (also in Bo) "Shiv'as Yamim Se'or Lo Yimatzei be'Vateichem"?

(c) Neither can we resolve the two Pesukim by explaining that "Shiv'as Yamim" forbids the *day* of the fifteenth, and "Ach ba'Yom ha'Rishon", comes to teach us that one must begin destroying it as soon as the night begins (and not just before daybreak) - because that we know already from the two Hekeshim, one of *destroying* Chametz to *eating* it, the other, of eating *Chametz* to eating *Matzah*. And by the latter, the Torah writes in Bo "ba'Erev Tochlu Matzos".