Previous daf

1)

(a) The problem with the statement 've'Chein le'Inyan Tum'ah' - is that the Shiur by Tum'ah (which depends on the owner's Hakpadah) is not the same as the Shiur of Chametz (which is a k'Zayis). So how can the Tana say 've'Chein'?

(b) Abaye refutes Rav Yehudah's amendment to 'Aval le'Inyan Tum'ah *Eino* Chein' - since that it not what the Mishnah says. How can Rav Yehudah just change 've'Chein' to 'Eino Chein'?

(c) So Abaye amends it to 've'Chen le'Inyan Tziruf Tum'ah ba'Pesach. u've'Sha'ar Yemos ha'Shanah Ika Pelugta' (i.e. Chiluk - a distinction between whether one is fussy or not).

(d) The case is when there is less than a k'Beitzah of food which was touching the k'Zayis of dough in the dish when a Sheretz touched it. On Pesach, when a k'Zayis is Chashuv, it will combine with the food to make up a k'Beitzah - even if he is not particular about the dough remaining there. Whereas during the rest of the year (when the criterion is whether one is particular or not), if he is not particular, then the dough will be Batel to the dish, and will not therefore, combine with the food to render it Tamei.

(a) The Mishnah does not say 'Im Makpid Alav, *Mitztaref*', asks Rava, but '... *Chotzetz*'?

(b) 've'Chein Leha'alos Taharah la'Arivah' - means that the dish became Tamei, and he wants to Tovel it, with the k'Zayis of Chametz-dough stuck to it. On Pesach, when the Shiur k'Zayis renders it Chashuv, even though he is not particular about the dough remaining there, it will be Chotzetz, and prevent the Tevilah from being effective; whereas during the rest of the year, as long as he is not particular, the dough will not be Chozetz, and the Tevilah will be effective.

(c) Rav Papa objects to this explanation on the grounds that the Mishnah says 've'Chein le'Inyan *Tum'ah*', not *... Taharah*?

(d) 've'Chein le'Inyan Lehorid Tum'ah la'Arivah' - means that a Sheretz touched the piece of dough. On Pesach, when the Isur renders it Chashuv, the dough will serve as a Chatzitzah and not transmit Tum'ah to the dish - even if he is not particular that the dough remains there; whereas during the year, as long as he is not particular about the dough remaining there, it will be Batel to the dish, and, as such, the entire dish will become Tamei.

(a) A Batzek ha'Cheresh - is a dough that is on the verge of becoming Chametz, but (like a deaf person that has ears, but one cannot tell whether he is able to hear or not), one cannot tell whether it has turned Chametz or not.

(b) It is called 'Batzek ha'Cheres' - because it is hard like clay. It has turned pale, but cracks have not yet appeared in its surface, from which one would know that it Chametz.

(c) One gauges whether it is Chametz or not - by comparing it to other doughs that were kneaded at the same time as it was, to see whether *they* have turned Chametz or not.

(a) By giving the Shiur of a Mil as 'the time it takes to go from Migdal Nuni'ah to Teverya - one Mil', Resh Lakish is teaching us the exact distance of a Mil.

(b) Rebbi Avahu quoting Resh Lakish, says 'Legabel, li'Tefilah, ve'li'Netilas Yadayim Arba'ah Milin': 'Legabel' means that someone who was kneading his friend's dough for wages (in the days when they were extremely particular about keeping their food Tahor) was required to walk as far as four Milin (seventy-two minutes) if necessary, to find a Mikvah to Tovel his vessels); 'li'Tefilah' means that a traveler had to walk forwards as far as four Milin to look for water to wash his hands or for a Minyan with which to Daven (beyond that, he could just clean his hands on something which wipes clean, and Daven without a Minyan; 'li'Netilas Yadayim' means that if a traveler wished to eat bread, he was obligated to keep on traveling for another four Milin in order to wash his hands before eating, more than that, he was permitted to eat without washing.

(c) Others add 'Ibud' - tanning to the list: certain soft skins of Neveilos which are Tamei like its flesh become Tahor once they have been tanned; the tanning period required to transform them from flesh into skin (which loses its Tum'ah) is the time it takes to walk four Milin.

(d) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina says that the four Milin distance that one needs to travel to search for water or for a Shul only applies in the direction that one is traveling; in any other direction (which entails going out of one's way), one is only obligated to search for a distance of only one Mil (eighteen minutes).

(a) One cannot just separate Chalah from a Tamei dough and ...

1. ... bake it - because it is forbidden to bake anything that is not for human consumption (since the concession to cook etc. on Yom-Tov stems from the Pasuk in Bo "Hu Lavado Ye'aseh *Lachem"*).
2. ... leave it until night-fall and burn it then - because in the meantime, it will become Chametz.
3. ... burn it or feed it to one's dog - because it is forbidden to burn or destroy Kodshim on Yom-Tov.

(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah - one places it in cold water, which will prevent it from becoming Chametz (see Tosfos DH 'Tatil').

(c) Rebbi Yehoshua says that one should do as in (a) 2., since Chalah is not one's personal property (but belongs to Hekdesh), and it therefore falls into the category of 'she'Lecha I Ata Ro'eh, *Aval Ata Ro'eh shel Acherim*'.

6)

(a) According to the Gemara's suggestion that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua argue over Tovas Hana'ah - Rebbi Eliezer holds that the Tamei dough is considered his (to transgress Bal Yera'eh etc., because of the Tovas Hana'ah (i.e. the potential coin that a Kohen's relation might pay him to give the Chalah to his relative rather than to another Kohen).

(b) Even if Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Tovas Hana'ah Einah Mamon' - the dough of Chalah is still considered the owner's because of 'Ho'il' (since he can release the Chalah which he declared through a Chacham - See Rashi 48a DH 'Aval', who rejects this text, preferring to explain 'Ho'il' to mean since he can separate Chalah from *each* dough, rather than just taking one of the doughs as Chalah [in which case, one of the doughs would not be fit for him, and it would be forbidden to bake all of them]).

(c) Even though one could, according to Rebbi Eliezer, declare the Chalah first, and bake the doughs afterwards, it is preferable to bake the dough first, since that is permitted even without 'Ho'il' (since 'Ho'il' is only permitted if there is no other way of achieving the required result). Note: Rashi wrote this before he retracted from his original interpretation of 'Ho'il' - see b.).

(d) According to Rebbi Eliezer, one is permitted to bake many doughs without having separated Chalah - since he can later place them into a basket, which will then combine them to make the Shiur Chalah.

8)

(a) If someone bakes on Yom-Tov for after Yom-Tov, he is not Chayav Malkos according to Rabah - because of the principle of 'Ho'il': 'Ho'il u'Mikla'i Lei Orchim, Chazi Lei'.

(b) The Machlokes only applies when the person who is cooking has already eaten his Yom-Tov meal - because otherwise, one would not even need to come on to 'Ho'il', since the dish is fit for his Yom-Tov meal.

(c) Rabah asks Rav Chisda - that since he does not hold of 'Ho'il', how will he explain the concession of cooking on Yom-Tov for Shabbos, even with Eruv Tavshilin? How can Eruv Tavshilin (de'Rabbanan) remove the Chiyuv Malkos?

(d) Rav Chisda ultimately replies - that mi'd'Oraysa, seeing as Shabbos and Yom-Tov are one Kedushah, one's Shabbos needs may be performed on Yom-Tov, and it is the Rabbanan who decreed Eruvei Tavshilin, as a Heker, so that people should say that one is also permitted to cook on Yom-Tov for a week- day.

(a) The Beraisa permits the Shechitah of a sick animal, provided there is time to eat a k'Zayis roasted before nightfall, even though he does not actually intend to do so. How will Rav Chisda explain this - without 'Ho'il'?

(b) Rav Chisda explains that Chazal permitted the Shechitah because of the great loss involved - meaning that, since he wants to spare himself the loss, he will actually decide to eat a k'Zayis (even if he has already eaten), in which case it will indeed be 'Lachem'.