Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina says that if the Tamei Chulin wine is a hundred times more than the Terumah wine that is about to spill into it, then one should allow the wine to spill rather than render it Tamei with one's hands - since in that case, the Terumah wine will become Batel (in a hundred and one), so that no big loss will be incurred.

(b) Rava explains that we must indeed change the wording of the Beraisa, and switch the names to read 'u'Modeh Rebbi *Yehoshua* le'*Rebbi Eliezer*'.

(c) According to Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua - 'u'Modeh Rebbi Eliezer le'Rebbi Yehoshua' refers, not to the Seifa of the Beraisa (to the case when they are *not* able to save the Terumah wine be'Taharah), but to the Reisha, when they *are*. The Chidush is when the inside of the vessel is Tahor, but the outside is Tamei, to tell us that even in this case, Rebbi Eliezer permits using such a vessel, and he does not decree that they may inadvertently allow the wine to touch the back of the vessel and become Tamei.

2)

(a) The statement 'Kol Sha'ah she'Mutar Le'echol, Ma'achil li'Vehemto' - is indeed obvious. The Tana does not mention it for its intrinsic Chidush, but for the inference, as will be explained in the Gemara.

(b) According to the Chachamim, it does not matter how one gets rid of this Chametz, even if it is by breaking it into crumbs and throwing it to the wind, or by casting it into the sea.

(c) The author of our Mishnah cannot be ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah - because according to him, there is the *fifth* hour, when Chametz may not be eaten, yet one may feed it to one's animals.
2. ... Rebbi Meir - because, according to him, the Mishnah should have been more brief. It should have written 'Kol Sha'ah she'Ochel, Ma'achil.

(d) The author of our Mishnah must therefore be Raban Gamliel, who differentiates between Chulin and Terumah. What the Tana is therefore saying is 'Kol Sha'ah she'Mutar *Kohen* Le'echol, *Yisrael* Ma'achil li'Vehemto'.

(a) If his animals leave over some of the Chametz, he will see it and destroy it, which is not the case by beasts, who tend to hide what they leave over. Beasts on the other hand, hide the Chametz, and, until he finds it, he will transgress neither 'Bal Yera'eh' nor 'Bal Yimatzei', whereas animals leave it in the open, and, should he fail to destroy it before Pesach, he will transgress 'Bal Yera'eh' and 'Bal Yimatzei'.

(b) The Tana only mentions birds because he has mentioned animals and beasts, not because of any inherent Chidush.

(a) The Tana informs us that one may sell Chametz to a gentile - to preclude the opinion of Beis Shamai, who forbid doing so, unless he knows that the gentile will definitely get rid of it before Pesach.

(b) According to Beis Shamai, one is obligated to ensure that one's Chametz is destroyed before Pesach. (c) Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira forbids the sale of Kutach (a condiment that contains bread) to a gentile within thirty days of Pesach (since the gentile is unlikely to finish it before Pesach - like the opinion of Beis Shamai (see Tosfos, DH Rebbi Yehudah, who establishes Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah like Beis Hillel).

5)

(a) 'u'Mutar be'Hana'ah' is speaking about Chametz which was scorched *before* it became Asur. The Chidush is that one may even benefit from it *after* the time of Isur (Note: See Rosh, Si'man 1, who nevertheless forbids *eating* the scorched Chametz).

(b) 'Avar Zemano, Asur be'Hana'aso' - means even in the time when the Chametz is only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan i.e. during the sixth hour (Refer to 7a, 1 a. and b.), it is Asur be'Hana'ah, and if someone betrothes a woman with it, she is not betrothed, and is permitted to go and receive Kidushin from another man.

(c) And the Chidush of 've'Lo Yasik Bo Tanur ve'Kirayim' - is that even according to Rebbi Yehudah, in whose opinion, one is obligated to *burn* the Chametz, one is not permitted to derive benefit from it whilst burning it (see Gilyon ha'Shas).

(a) Chizkiyah learns from the Pasuk "Lo Ye'achel Chametz" - that Chametz is Asur be'Hana'ah (because 'Ye'achel' incorporates an Isur Hana'ah).

(b) Rebbi Avahu holds that every Lashon of Achilah (even 'Lo Yochal', 'Lo Sochal' and 'Lo Sochlu') also incorporates Isur Hana'ah).

(c) Rebbi Avahu learns from the Pasuk "Lo Sochlu Kol Neveilah, la'Ger Asher bi'She'arecha Titenenah" - that since the Torah needs to permit Neveilah to a Ger, "Lo Sochlu" must incorporate Hana'ah (though that is only according to the opinion of Rebbi Meir, as we shall soon see).

(a) According to Rebbi Meir, one may also *sell* Neveilah to a Ger or *give* it to a gentile - because, since the Torah writes "la'Ger Asher bi'She'arecha *Titenenah va'Achalah, O Machor* le'Nochri" - in the middle (rather tyhan "*Titenenah* la'Ger Asher bi'She'arech va'Achalah, *O Machor* le'Nochri"), we read the Pasuk as if it would have written "la'Ger Asher bi'She'arecha Titenenah (va'Achalah) O Machor, Titenenah (va'Achalah) O Machor le'Nochri".

(b) The Ger referred to in the Pasuk is a Ger Toshav - who remains a gentile, but who undertakes not to serve idols.

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah - the Torah is particular that one deals with Neveilah exactly as it stipulates: i.e. by giving it to a Ger or selling it to a gentile (and not vice-versa).

(b) Rebbi Meir learns from "*O* Machor le'Nochri" - that one should preferably give Neveilah to a Ger than sell it to a gentile (but not to preclude any of the four possibilities).

(c) Rebbi Yehudah considers that unnecessary. It is obvious, he argues, that one should if possible, give Neveilah to a Ger, since one is obligated to sustain him.

(a) Rebbi Avahu cannot learn from Rebbi Yehudah in the above Beraisa that whenever the Torah writes "Lo Yochal", "Sochal" or "Sochlu", it includes an Isur Hana'ah unless otherwise specified - because, according to Rebbi Yehudah, who says that we need the details in the Pasuk to permit Hana'ah (from which we can deduce that otherwise, it would be forbidden, as is the case according to Rebbi Meir)? Perhaps "Lo Sochlu" does not incorporate an Isur Hana'ah, and we need the details to instruct us to *give* Neveilah to a Ger or to *sell* it to a gentile.

(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Avahu learn his principle from Tereifah, from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "la'Kelev Tashlichun *Oso*" - 'Oso Ata Mashlich la'Kelev, ve'I Ata Mashlich Kol Isurin she'ba'Torah'.

(c) Rebbi Meir learns from "Oso" - 'Oso Ata Mashlich la'Kelev, ve'I Ata Mashlich Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah (to teach us that Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah are Asur be'Hana'ah mi'd'Oraysa).

(d) According to Rebbi Yehudah, Chulin that were Shechted in the Azarah are only Asur be'Hana'ah mi'de'Rabbanan.

(a) Had the Torah just written "la'Kelev Tashlichenu" (and not "Oso") we would have just learnt from there that Hashem gives everyone his due reward, because here, He is rewarding the dogs for not barking in Egypt when *He* went round the Egyptian houses killing their first-born (even though they do normally bark when the *Angel of Death* arrives on the scene).

(b) The Isur Achilah of Chulin that were Shechted in the Azarah - derives from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Ki Yirchak Mimecha ha'Makom, ve'Zavachta ve'Achalta" - that one may only Shecht Chulin when one is *far from the Azarah*, but not when one is *inside it*; and in that Pasuk, there is no La'av for eating them, which would incorporate Hana'ah, according to Rebbi Avahu. That explains why Rebbi Meir needs "Oso" to forbid it.