Previous daf

1)

(a) 'Afah Bo es ha'Pas, Asurah be'Hana'ah' - even if the wood first fell into other wood, because the Beraisa continues 'Nis'arvu ba'Acheros (va'Acheros ba'Acheros' - which Rabeinu Tam, in Tosfos DH 'Nis'arvu' omits from the text), Kulan Asurin be'Hana'ah'.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer says there 'Yolich Hana'ah le'Yam ha'Melach'.

(a) If we were to say that Rebbi Eliezer is strict there only because of the stringency of Avodah-Zarah, but that, in other areas of Halachah, he will hold 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem, Mutar' - then who will be the author of the Beraisa 'Chadash Yutatz'? And besides, we have a Beraisa which specifically reads 've'Chen Hayah Rebbi Eliezer Oser be'Chol Isurin she'ba'Torah'.

(b) In fact, we could just as well have established the Beraisa of Tanur by Orlah and Kelai ha'Kerem as being the Rabbanan of Rebbi Eliezer. The reason that we only mentioned Rebbi Eliezer and not them - is because we do not know who they are by name.

(a) Even assuming that Rebbi holds Yesh Sh'vach Eitzim be'Pas, but Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem is Mutar, he will agree with Rebbi Eliezer however, that earthenware dishes, cups and jars which were manufactured from wood from an Asheirah are forbidden - because they contain Sh'vach Eitzim, and are subsequently used cold, without a second Gorem.

(b) In the second Lashon, Rebbi will even agree with Rebbi Eliezer by a pot - since one subsequently places the contents in the pot *before* heating it up with wood which is Mutar (and which is the second Gorem), unlike the oven, into which one tends to stick the bread *after* it has been heated, making it 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem'.

(c) Shmuel quoted the Beraisa ... 'Afah Bo es ha'Pas, Rebbi Omer ha'Pas Muteres, va'Chachamim Omrim ha'Pas Asurah'. He deliberately switched the opinion, because in this case, he ruled like Rebbi (a minority opinion). So, in order to encourage the other Chachamim to accept his ruling, he quoted Rebbi in the name of the Chachamim, making it the majority opinion.

(a) Others say that Rebbi concedes 'Bishlah Al-gabei Gechalim, Divrei ha'Kol ha'Pas Muteres' - even by red-hot coals as well, and that he argues only when the coals are actually aflame, and when the bread was baked from the actual flame.

(b) According to the second opinion, the Rabbanan concede that peels of Orlah and even the wood of K'lai ha'Kerem is prohibited when one actually shapes the wood into an object (i.e. a chair), in which case, one derives benefit from the wood in its initial state (i.e. before it has been destroyed).

5)

(a) The Rabbanan, permit the bread by the case of *Orlah and K'lai ha'Kerem* (because 'Ein Sh'vach Eitzim be'Pas', which in turn, is due to the fact that the small amount of Hana'ah from the Isur that enters the bread becomes Batel). They will concede however, that if the bread was baked with wood of *Hekdesh*, it will be forbidden - because whereas Bitul applies to Orlah and K'lai ha'Kerem, Hekdesh does not become Batel.

(b) When Rava asks 'va'Halo Ma'al ha'Masik' - he means to ask why the person who burnt the wood is not Mo'el, since, if he would be, why should the wood not go out to Chulin (and why should the oven or the bread then be Asur)?

(a) Shelamim-wood is wood that the owner declared Hekdesh, but on the condition that it is sold, and that with the proceeds, he will purchase a Shelamim.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah says that Hekdesh does not go out to Chulin be'Meizid (i.e. if someone derived benefit from it on purpose). Shelamim, will have the same Din as other Hekdesh be'Meizid (even if one used them be'Shogeg), since they are not subject to Me'ilah.

(c) Shelamim are not subject to Me'ilah - because they are only Kodshim Kalim, and do not therefore constitute *Kodshei Hashem* (which is the term that the Torah uses bu Me'ilah).

(d) The reason we do not answer that it speaks when he used the Hekdesh-wood *deliberately* - is because the Lashon 'Tanur she'Hisiku bi'Kelifei Orlah' implies Shogeg as well as Meizid.

(a) The Beraisa 've'Efer Hekdesh Le'olam Asur' - speaks when the Hekdesh caught fire by itself, and is not subject to Me'ilah.

(b) The Beraisa also cites the wood of Asheirah, whose ashes are not permitted.

(c) The Beraisa uses the expression 'Le'olam' specifically with regard to the ashes of Hekdesh - to indicate that Hekdesh does not become permitted through Bitul, in the way that the wood of Asheirah (like all Avodah-Zarah) does.

(a) Rav Shemayah establishes the Beraisa 'be'Osan she'Te'unin Genizah' by the ashes of Terumas ha'Deshen.

(b) The Beraisa Darshens "ve'Samo" - be'Nachas (gently); "ve'Samo" - Kulo (all of it); "ve'Samo" - she'Lo Yefazer (that it should not scatter).

(a) If Nosar, Darshens Rebbi Yehudah, which is *not* subject to Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei, must be burnt, then Chametz , which *is*, should certainly be burnt.

(b) The Rabbanan object however, to that Kal va'Chomer, on the grounds that, someone who cannot find wood, will not destroy his Chametz (nor will he be obligated to do so - because he is an O'nes). At the end of the day, Rebbi Yehudah's Chumra becomes a Kula (at least as far as someone who wants to travel within thirty days of Pesach is concerned - someone who does not, will be obligated to get rid of his Chametz in any way possible after the sixth hour, even according to Rebbi Yehudah).

(c) Rebbi Yehudah gets round the objection, by learning Chametz from Nosar not through a Kal va'Chomer (to which the previous Kashya *does* apply), but from a Mah Matzinu (to which it does *not*).

(d) Rebbi Yehudah refutes the Rabbanan's counter-argument ...

1. ... from Neveilah (which does *not* need to be burnt) - by pointing out that Neveilah is *not* Asur be'Hana'ah, whereas both Chametz and Nosar *are*.
2. ... from Shor ha'Niskal (which *is* Asur be'Hana'ah) - by pointing out that Shor ha'Niskal is *not* Chayav Kares, whereas both Chametz and Nosar *are*.

(a) The Rabbanan finally force Rebbi Yehudah to retract from learning a direct 'Mah Matzinu' from Nosar - from the Chelev of Shor ha'Niskal, which is Asur be'Hana'ah, and carries with it a Chiyuv Kares, yet it does not need to be burnt.

(b) The Rabbanan prove Rebbi Yehudah (who learns the obligation to burn Chametz, from the fact that Chametz, like Nosar, is subject to 'Bal Tosiru') wrong, from Asham Taluy and Chatas ha'Of that comes in the case of a Safek, which Rebbi Yehudah himself rules must be buried - even though they are Chayav Kares and Asur be'Hana'h.

(c) 'Sedana be'Sudni Yasiv, mi'Devil Yadei Mishtalim' - means that in the end, when the carpenter was found stealing, they put him in the very stocks which he had made to put others in. Similarly, the Rabbanan used Rebbi Yehudah's own opinion (even though they did not actually agree with him in this point) to catch him out, and to force him to rescind.