Previous daf

1)

(a) If one were to worry that immediately after the Bedikah, a weasel carried away some Chametz from one corner of a room to another, or from one house in the Chatzer to another house - it would mean that one iwould be obligated to examine all the rooms in the house and all the houses in the Chatzer simultaneously.

(b) We do not take that contingency into account - because, if we would, we would also need to worry that perhaps a weasel carried Chametz from one Chatzer to another, or even from one town to another, and it is practically impossible to demand that all Jews everywhere, must search their houses simultaneously.

(a) The reason that 'Meduros ha'Akum Temei'im' - is because we suspect that a woman may have had a miscarriage and buried the baby under the floor of the house (as was customary in those times). This only applies if the man had been living in that house for at least forty days.

(b) It makes no difference whether the gentile is married or not.

(c) This suspicion will not apply in a place where there are weasels or pigs (who will eat the miscarriages).

(d) If we rely on the weasels eating the flesh, then why should we not also rely on them eating the bread? And if that is so, why does our Mishnah not absolve the house-owner from Bedikah even when he actually saw a weasel taking Chametz?

(a) We can rely on the weasels digging up *flesh* and eating it, says Rebbi Zeira, but not so much on eating *bread*.

(b) Rava argues that our Mishnah, where there is *definitely* Chametz (leaving us with *one* Safek - whether the weasel ate it or not), is anyway not comparable to the Mishnah in Ohalos (where there is a double Safek - i.e. maybe there was no miscarriage, and even if there was, maybe a weasel ate it). Consequently, argues Rava, there is no Kashya in the first place.

(c) 'Chaver she'Meis, ve'Hini'ach Megurah Me'lei'ah Peiros, va'Afilu Hen B'nei Yoman, Harei Hen be'Chezkas Mesukanim'. 'Ein Safek Motzi mi'Yedei Vadai' does not apply there - either because it is no Safek that *perhaps* the Chaver Ma'asered the fruit before he died, but *Vadai* (like Rebbi Chanina taught: that a Chaver will never produce any food which is not fully Ma'asered; or because the fruit cannot be considered *Vadai* Tevel, only a *Safek* (like Rebbi Oshaya taught: that one can exempt oneself from having to take Ma'asros, by bringing the grain into the house before it has been threshed and winnowed, and threshing and winnowing it there. If one does that, it does not bear the title 'Tevel'.

(d) 'B'nei Yoman' means - that the Chaver died on the very same day that he had winnowed the crops.

(a) We have just explained that if someone brings un-winnowed crops into the house, and performs the winnowing and the Miru'ach there - they do not bear the title 'Tevel', in which case, he, as well as his animal, is permitted to eat them. The Beraisa mentions 'animal', because an animal may eat even mi'de'Rabbanan, whereas a person may not, since the Chachamim decreed that these crops are Tevel mi'de'Rabbanan.

(b) He is permitted to feed his animals their regular meals from thesse crops, because the Din of casual eating is confined to humans, and not to animals.

(c) In spite of the Isur de'Rabbanan mentioned earlier - he is permitted to eat these crops without the need to Ma'aser them, even mi'de'Rabbanan. Why is that? Because, since the Isur is only mi'de'Rabbanan, we rely on the Chaver having Ma'asered them.

5)

(a) The Dinim of Tum'as Yoledes do apply to a non-Jewish slave-girl - as we see from the story with the Kohen and the miscarriage.

(b) The Kohen peeped into the pit in which one of the family slaves had had a miscarriage - to ascertain whether the miscarriage was a male or a female (in order to know how many days of Tum'ah and Taharah the mother had to observe).

(c) By doing so, the Kohen was violating the prohibition on a Kohen to become Tamei Mes.

(d) 'Ein Safek Motzi mi'Yedei Vadai' did not apply there - either because it was only a *Safek* Nefel, making it a double- Safek: 1. a Safek whether it was a Nefel or not, and even if it *was* 2. perhaps a weasel had eaten it; or because, seeing as it was the habitat of weasels, who would definitely drag the miscarriage away, the baby was certainly no longer in the pit (whether they had eaten it or not), and it was therefore a case of Vaday and Vaday.

(a) How do we reconcile our Mishnah (which does not contend with the possibility that a weasel may have dragged the Chametz away), asks the Gemara, with the next Mishnah, which says 'Mah she'Meshayer, Yanichenu be'Tzin'ah' - in case a weasel takes some of the Chametz and carries it away?

(b) Our Mishnah speaks on the *thirteenth* of Nisan, Abaye suggests, when there is plenty of Chametz around, and the weasel will not see any need to hide the Chametz that it found; whereas the next Mishnah speaks on the *fourteenth*, when there is a shortage of Chametz, as a result of which, the weasels will hide the Chametz that they find.

(c) Are weasels prophets, asks Rava, to realize that there is a shortage of Chametz, and then to link that to the fact there will be not be any more Chametz for eight days?

(d) Rava therefore explains the next Mishnah to mean that one must put the Chametz in a discreet place, because, although we do not contend with unknown weasels taking Chametz from the pile, that does rule out the possibility that a weasel may just take it *in front of us* and hide it.

(a) If there are ten piles of bread lying in a house that has already been examined, nine of them - Matzah, and one - Chametz, and we see a mouse taking from one of them, but we don't know from which one - the house needs to be searched again, because of the principle 'Kol Kavu'a ke'Mechtzah u'Mechtzah Dami' (just like the case when someone bought from a store in a town where nine stores were selling Neveilos and one, Kosher meat, and he cannot recall from which store he bought - we assume that he bought from the shop that sold Neveilos, as if half the shops were selling Neveilos).

(b) If the mouse took the piece of bread from the floor, after someone had, without our knowledge, taken it from one of the piles, and placed it there - then we assume that the bread was taken from the majority (i.e. from one of the piles of Matzah), because of the principle 'Kol de'Parish, me'Rubah Parish, meaning that as long as the bread was not found in its original location, we say that it came from the majority.

(c) If there were two piles, one of Matzah and one of Chametz, and two mice came and took a piece, one from each of the piles (though we don't know which took from which). Then one of the mice went into a room that was searched, the other into a room that was not - we assume that the mouse that took the Chametz, took it into the room that was *not yet* searched, and the mouse that took the Matzah, took it into the house that *was*. Consequently, the room that was searched will not need to be searched again.

(d) True, the Beraisa of 'Shtei Kupos' - is speaking about Terumah de'Rabbanan - but our case (of two piles of Chametz and Matzah, in front of two houses) is only de'Rabbanan, too. How so? Because it speaks when he has already made Bitul Chametz, because *then*, Bedikas Chametz is only mi'de'Rabbanan'.