Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Papa asks whether the Shiur of a Koseves ha’Gasah (a large date) includes the pit or not. If it does not - we will explain the Mishnah, which explicitly writes ‘Kamoha u’ki’Gerinasah’, as if it would have written ‘Kamoha *O* ki’Gerinasah’ (see Tosfos DH 'Koseves).

(b) Rav Ashi asked whether the Mishnah in Ohalos ‘Etzem ki’Se’orah’ (the Shiur of a bone from a dead person that is Metamei) includes the shell of the barley, or not. He also asks whether the barley is a wet one or a dry one.

(c) Rav Ashi does not agree with Rav Papa’s She’eilah. He takes for granted that the Tana means a date with the pit - because the Mishnah says 'Koseves ha'Gasah', indicating that it must be as large as possible.

(d) Rav Papa does not agree with Rav Ashi’s She’eilah. According to him, a barley grain is called ...

1. ... a ‘Shibo’les’ - once it becomes dry.
2. ... an ‘Ushla’ (or a ‘Chushla’) - once it sheds its shell. Consequently, 'Etzem ki'Se'orah' must be referring to a wet grain with its shell still intact.

(a) According to Rabah quoting Rav Yehudah, a Koseves ha’Gasah is *more* than a k’Beitzah.

(b) Chazal gave that Shiur for Yom Kipur, and not a k’Zayis - because whereas by other Isurim, the Torah uses a Lashon of Achilah, by Yom Kipur, it writes "Asher Lo Se'uneh", and, as long as a person's hunger is not stilled (a situation that requires a Koseves ha'Gasah), it is called 'Inuy'.

(c) When they brought Raban Gamliel a bucket of water and two large dates on Sukos, he told them to take them up to the Sukah - not because it was obligatory, explains the Beraisa, but because he wanted to take a stringent line (to go beyond the letter of the law).

(d) When they gave Rebbi Tzadok less than a k’Beitzah of food on Sukos - he wrapped his hands in a cloth (to avoid having to wash them), he ate them outside the Sukah, and he did not Bensch after eating them (see Tosfos DH 've'Lo').

(a) We can deduce from Rebbi Tzadok (in the previous question) - that a k'Beitzah of food requires Sukah.

(b) We see from Raban Gamliel that two large dates are *less* than a k'Beitzah -since the Beraisa said that Raban Gamliel was not obligated to eat them in the Sukah, and we just deduced from Rebbi Tzadok that a k'Beitzah is Chayav Sukah?

(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah answers this Kashya - by making a distinction between *two* large dates *without* the pits (which are indeed *less* than a k'Beitzah), and *one* large date *with* its pit (which is *more*). In other words, the stone of a large date is larger than the date itself.

(d) The common saying that derives from what Rebbi Yirmiyah just said - is 'Two Kabin of dates is equivalent to one Kav of pits'.

4)

(a) Rava dismisses the above Kashya outright. According to him, two dates are *more* than a k’Beitzah - The reason that the Tana said that they did not require a Sukah, is because dates are a fruit, and fruit does not require a Sukah (only bread or cake, which constitute a fixed meal).

(b) We amend Rebbi, who said in a Beraisa that they ate figs and grapes in front of Rebbi Elazar ben Shamu’a ‘Achilas Ara’i’ - to 'ka'Achilas Ara'i', meaning that however much they would have eaten, it would have been Achilas Ara'i, because fruit is always Achilas Ara'i.

(c) Alternatively, the Beraisa speaks when they ate a full Shiur of fruit (an ‘Achilas Keva’) - and the Achilas Ara'i that Rebbi mentioned refers to the bread that they ate with it (i.e. less than a k'Beitzah).

(a) We try to prove Rava right from the Mishnah in Sukah, which says that, according to Rebbi Eliezer (who requires fourteen meals in the Sukah), one can make up those meals with ‘Minei Targima’ - which we presume to mean a condiment (i.e. something that is normally eaten together with bread as part of the meal).

(b) We refute this proof by redefining ‘Targima’ as fruit.

(c) We then refute it - even assuming that ‘Targima’ means condiments - on the grounds that the Tana suggests condiments for people who live in a place where fruit is rare.

(a) Beis Shamai holds that whereas, regarding ‘Bal Yera’eh’ and ‘Bal Yimatzei’, the Shiur for yeast is a k’Zayis, the Shiur for Chametz is a Koseves - because had the Torah wanted them to have the same Shiur, it would have omitted yeast (which makes other foods Chametz), which we would then have learnt from a Kal va'Chomer from Chametz (which does not).

(b) It is illogical to say that the Shiur for Chametz is a k’Zayis and the Shiur for yeast, *less* than a k’Zayis - since that would make the La'av of Bal Yera'eh (which is basically to avoid the Isur of Achilah) more stringent than Achilah itself, whose Shiur is a k'Zayis.

(c) Now if the Shiur of a Koseves ha'Gasah was *more* than a k'Beitzah (like the opinion of Rav Yehudah), argues Rav Z'vid, then why does Beis Shamai, when giving the Shiur for Chametz, jump from a k'Zayis to a Koseves? Why does he not give the Shiur as a k'Beitzah, which is also more than a k'Zayis? And even if they are equal, why do they mention a Koseves and not (the more common) k'Beitzah? Clearly therefore, a Koseves is the Shiur after a k'Zayis, and not a k'Beitzah?

(d) We refute this proof by pointing out that Beis Shamai refers to an *ordinary* Koseves, which is equal to a k'Beitzah; whereas a *large* Koseves (i.e. a Koseves ha'Gasah) is indeed larger than a k'Beitzah (as Rav Yehudah contends). And besides, says the Gemara, even if a Koseves ha'Gasah is equivalent to a k'Beitzah, the Tana mentions one of two examples, and is not fussy which one. (Note: It is unclear however, how both answers appear to dismiss the second Kashya in c.)

(a) According to Rebbi Meir, one needs to eat a k’Zayis of bread in order to Bensch; according to Rebbi Yehudah, it is a k'Beitzah - enough to be satisfied.

(b) Both of them derive their opinions from the Pasuk in Eikev “ve’Achalta ve’Sa’va’ta u’Verachta ... ". Rebbi Meir interprets ...

1. ... “ve’Achalta” - to mean eating (a k'Zayis).
2. ... “ve’Sava’ta” - as drinking (meaning that one needs to eat and drink in order to Bensch).

(c) According to Rebbi Yehudah, “ve’Achalta” means to eat (which normally implies a k'Zayis), and "ve'Sava'ta", to be satisfied (i.e. a k'Beitzah).

(d) Rebbi Zevid derives from here that a Koseves ha’Gasah must be less than a k’Beitzah - because otherwise, if a k'Beitzah satisfies a person ('Sevu'i'), then it must surely still his hunger ('Meyasva')? It can only be, he proves, that a Koseves ha'Gasah stills a person's hunger without satisfying, and a k'Beitzah even satisfies.