ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 5
(a) The time for the Mitzvah of Bi'ur Chametz cannot be the *night* of the
fourteenth - because the Torah writes "Ach ba'*Yom* ha'Rishon".
(b) Nor does it fall due already in the morning - since "Ach" teaches us
to divide the day, half is permitted, and half is forbidden.
(c) Tana de'Bei Rebbi learns from the Pasuk "ba'Rishon be'Arba'ah-Asar Yom
la'Chodesh" - that sometimes, the Torah refers to the fourteenth as
(a) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak learns from "ha'Rishon Adam Tivaled" - that
sometimes "Rishon" means 'before' rather than 'first'.
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak accounts for the extra 'Hey' in 'ha'Rishon by ...
(b) "u'Lekachtem Lachem ba'Yom ha'Rishon" cannot mean the day before -
because the Torah also writes "u'Semachtem Lifnei Hashem Elokechem Shiv'as
Yamim"; just as the 'seventh day' means the seventh day of Yom-Tov, in the
same way, the 'first day' must mean the first day of Yom-Tov.
(c) The Gemara objects to the contention that 'Rishon' should mean the
'day before' from the extra 'Hey' of 'ha'Rishon' - because in that case,
we should also obligate taking the Lulav the day before Succos, since
there too, the Torah writes ba'Yom *ha*'Rishon.
(d) The Gemara objects to learning the 'Hey' of ha'Rishon by the Yom-Tov
of Succos to preclude Chol ha'Mo'ed from the Din of Mikra Kodesh - because
we know that already from 'Rishon' and 'Shemini'.
1. ... the Mikra Kodesh of Pesach - to hint at the merit of the
destruction of Eisav (the Se'or she'be'Isah), by which the Pasuk in Toldos
writes "Veyetzei *ha'Rishon* Admoni".
2. ... the Mikra Kodesh of Succos - to hint to the construction of the
Beis Hamikdash, by which the Navi Yirmayah writes "Kisei Kavod Marom
3. ... the Mitzvah of Lulav - to hint at the merit of the coming of
Mashi'ach, by which the Navi Yeshayah writes "*Rishon* le'Tzi'on Hinei
Hinam". (See Agadas Maharsha)
(a) "Lo Sishchat Al Chametz Dam Zivchi" - teaches us that one is not
permitted to Shecht the Korban Pesach (i.e. from mid-day, when the Mitzvah
falls due), and have Chametz in one's possession.
(b) The Torah is not giving each person his own personal time to destroy
his Chametz, but a time when everyone must do so ('Nasata Devarecha
(a) Rebbi Akiva learns it from "Ach ba'Yom ha'Rishon Tashbisu ... Kol
Melachah Lo Sa'asu" - if "ba'Yom ha'Rishon" would mean literally the first
day of Yom-Tov, how would it be permitted to burn the Chametz on Yom-Tov?
It is only permitted to make a fire and to cook, if it is for Ochel
Nefesh, but not for a Mitzvah per se (see Tosfos DH 'Kol Melachah Lo
(b) Rava learns from Rebbi Akiva's opinion - that 1. 'Ein Bi'ur Chametz
Ela Sereifah' (like his Talmid, Rebbi Yehudah); 2. Hav'arah (making a
fire) is an Av Melachah like Rebbi Nasan, who learns that the Torah
mentions Hav'arah in order to be Mechayav for each Melachah individually
(not to single out Hav'arah, to teach us that it is only a La'av and not
Kares - like Rebbi Yossi); 3. That we do not say 'Ho'il ve'Hutrah
Hav'arah le'Tzorech, Hutrah Nami she'Lo le'Tzorech'.
(c) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learns from "Ach ba'Yom ha'Rishon Tashbisu". This
cannot be referring to the fifteenth, because "Ach" permits retaining the
Chametz for part of the day - and, as we learnt above, the Torah compares
the Mitzvah of *destroying Chametz* to the *prohibition of eating* it, and
the prohibition of eating it to the *Mitzvah of eating* it. This in turn
means, that one may not have any Chametz on the night of the fifteenth.
Consequently, "ba'Yom ha'Rishon" can only mean on the fourteenth.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ..."Lo Yera'eh *Lecha* Se'or be'Chol Gevulecha" - that it is only your
own Chametz (which belongs to a Jew) that is forbidden, but not Chametz
which belongs to a non-Jew or to Hekdesh.
(b) And the Torah adds "Shiv'as Yamim Se'or Lo Yimatzei be'Vatechem" - to
include even the Chametz of a non-Jew who is under your jurisdiction and
who lives in the same Chatzer as you (we shall see later what this means).
2. ... "Lo Yimatzei" - 1. that neither is hiding the Chametz permitted and
2. nor may one receive Chametz from gentiles to look after (since here,
the Torah does not write "Lecha").
(c) We learn from the first "be'Chol Gevulecha" - that the Isur of Chametz
is not confined to houses, but extends even to Chametz in pits, trenches
(d) We know that Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei, Bal Yatmin and Bal Yekabel
Pikdonos min ha'Nochri apply even by Gevulim; and that 'she'Lecha I Ata
Ro'eh, Aval Ata Ro'eh shel Acherim' applies even to houses - because of
the Gezeirah Shavah "Se'or" "Se'or", one written by Batim and the other,
(a) If the Chametz of a non-Jew who is *not* under your jurisdiction (or
who do not live with you in the same courtyard) is forbidden, then why
should we need another Pasuk to include one who *is*? Is that not obvious?
(b) Rava establishes that part of the Beraisa, not by the Seifa, which
deals with the La'av of Lo Yimatzei, but by the Reisha, with regard to the
Heter of 'Lecha' (permitting the Chametz of gentiles).
(c) The Pasuk "Lo Yera'eh Lecha Se'or" appears twice, once in Re'ei and
once in Bo. The latter is redundant, so we use it for the Pasuk of "Lo
Yimatzei", as if the Torah had written "Lo Yimatzei Lecha" (Even what is
Matzuy i.e. when the non-Jew is Matzuy by you); it is permitted, because
it is not yours. And it is in that context that the Gemara quotes the
Pasuk "Lo Yimatzei be'Vateichem" (in itself, a Pasuk that comes to be
(a) The Reisha, which *forbids* the accepting of a security of Chametz
from a gentile - speaks in a case when the Jew accepted responsibility
should something happen to the Chametz (then it is as if he was the
owner); whereas the Seifa, which *permits* it, speaks when he did not.
Note: See Rosh Si'man 4, as to whether the responsibility needs to be
that of a Shomer Sachar to be forbidden, or whether even just that of a
Shomer Chinam will suffice.
(b) Rava told the inhabitants of Mechuza - to burn the Chametz which the
non-Jewish soldiers had deposited with them, because, since they had
accepted responsibility should it become stolen or lost, it was as if the
Chametz was theirs.
(c) According to those who hold 'Davar ha'Gorem le'Mamon, *La'av* ke'Mamon
Dami' - how can the Chametz be considered theirs?
(d) Even if 'Davar ha'Gorem le'Mamon, *La'av* ke'Mamon Dami' - answers the
Gemara, the Chametz is nevertheless considered theirs, because the Torah
writes "Lo Yimatzei", and once they accepted responsibility, it is
(a) In the second Lashon, the Gemara asks that, according to Rebbi Shimon,
who holds 'Davar ha'Gorem le'Mamon, ke'Mamon Dami', why do we need "Lo
(b) Rebbi Shimon, answers the Gemara, speaks when the article in question
is stolen or lost, and that is why it is considered Mamon; whereas here,
we are speaking when the Chametz is still there, in which case, he can
return it to the owner. Consequently, even according to Rebbi Shimon it
would not be considered his - if not for the Pasuk "Lo Yimatzei".