ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 52
PESACHIM 52 has been dedicated by Mr. Avi Berger of Queens, N.Y. in memory
of his parents, Pinchas ben Reb Avraham Yitzchak, and Leah bas Michal
(a) Rav Yosef placed Rav Nasan bar Asya in Cherem - because he went on the
second day of Shavuos, from the Yeshivah to Pumbedisa (which was beyond the
(b) Abaye asked Rav Yosef why he did not give him Malkos.
(c) Rav Yosef proved that Cherem is more stringent than Malkos - from the
fact that in Eretz Yisrael (where they were more particular about Kavod
Torah), they would give a Torah-student lashes rather than place him in
Cherem (Most other Rishonim explain the Gemara differently - see Rabeinu
(d) According to the second Lashon, Rav Yosef gave Rav Nasan bar Asya
Malkos, despite Rav and Shmuel's ruling, that someone who violated the
second day Yom-Tov was to be placed in Cherem, rather than to receive lashes
- because he was a Torah-student.
(a) 'A species of fruit that is finished' (with regard to Shemitah) means
that there are no more fruits of that species in any of the fields of that
region of Eretz Yisrael or Ever ha'Yarden for the wild animals to eat.
(b) When Rebbi Yehudah says 'You can also go and fetch some', he seems to
mean that, since the town from which the fruit came is located in a region
where there *are* still some of that species available in the fields, it is
permitted even in the town where he is now, even though there are *not*.
(c) But does Rebbi Yehudah not hold of the principle 'Nosnin Alav ...
ve'Chumrei ha'Makom she'Halach Lesham' ... ?
(a) After we amend the Mishnah to read 'O mi'Makom she'Lo Kalu le'Makom
she'Lo Kalu, ve'Shama she'Kalu bi'Mekomo' - the Tana Kama holds that since,
when all's said and done, the fruit has now finished in the town from which
he came, it is forbidden to deviate from the Minhag of his town. But Rebbi
Yehudah maintains that, since, when he left his town, the fruit was
permitted, he can say to them 'Seeing as I took it from your town when there
was still some left in the fields, to a town where there are still some in
the fields, it is permitted.
(b) According to this however, Rebbi Yehudah comes to be lenient, whereas
Rebbi Elazar clearly said that he comes to be strict. Consequently, we
change the Tana Kama's words to read not 'Chayav Leva'er', but 'Eino Chayav
Leva'er' (for the reason that we gave in Rebbi Yehudah a moment ago). And
when Rebbi Yehudah says 'Tzei ve'Havei Lecha Af Ata'!, he is not making a
statement, but issuing a challenge, as if to say 'See if you can find fruit
there' (and since you cannot, because it has now finished, the fruit is
(c) Abaye re-establishes the Mishnah by someone who brought fruit from a
place where they have *not* finished to a place where they *have*, and he
then takes them back to find that they have still not finished. - The Tana
Kama permits the fruit on the grounds that it came from a place where that
species had not yet finished and it was still not finished; whereas Rebbi
Yehudah holds that, since he now brought them from a place where the species
has finished, the fruit is forbidden.
(d) The Gemara rejects this explanation - because 'since when does passing
through a place forbid the fruit'? It is either the place where thr fruit
grew or the place where the person with the fruit is now, which renders it
(a) If three different species are picked together in a barrel. Rebbi
Eliezer holds that the moment one of the species is finished, the entire
barrel is forbidden - Rebbi Yehoshua says that one may continue to eat from
the barrel as long as any of the species is still to be found in the fields;
whereas, according to Raban Gamliel as each species becomes unavailable in
the fields, it becomes forbidden, irrespective of the other kinds in the
(b) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah (who forbids the barrel only when all the
species have finished, but not before) follows the opinion of Rebbi
Yehoshua, and Rebbi Yehudah (who says 'You go and find that species in the
fields'!), that of Raban Gamliel.
(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa, who permits eating dates in Yehudah, even
'Al Shel Bein ha'Shitzin' - means to say that even if the remaining dates
are only to be found at the foot of the date-palms among the thorns where
the wild animals cannot get to them, the fruit that remains in the house is
nevertheless permitted; whereas Raban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that we
disregard the dates among the thorns; according to him, it is only as long
as there are dates (even loose ones) still remaining among the palm-leaves
(where the wild animals can get to them) that one is permitted to eat the
dates in the house.
(b) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah (who says that it is only when the dates
are *completely* finished in the fields that those in the house are
forbidden - holds like the Tana Kama of the Beraisa; whereas Rebbi Yehudah
(who tells the man 'You go and fetch some dates from the base of the palms!'
And since you cannot get to those that are lodged among the thorns, we
disregard them') - holds like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel.
1. Chazal divided Eretz Yisrael into three independent regions with regard
to 'Kalah le'Chayah min ha'Sadeh': Yehudah, Ever ha'Yarden and the Galil.
The moment any particular species has finished from the fields in one of the
areas, fixes the Z'man ha'Bi'ur for that area.
(b) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'li'Vehemtecha, ve'la'Chayah" - that as long
as any particular species remains in the fields, one is still permitted to
retain that species in the house to feed the animals (and of course,
2. The three areas into which each of these three was divided - was also due
to the fact that the fruit would terminate in the one before the other.
Nevertheless, this division had no Halachic significance (see Tosfos DH
(c) Chazal knew to divide Eretz Yisrael specifically into the three
aforementioned areas - because they had a tradition that the wild animals of
Yehudah, Ever ha'Yarden and the Galil do not feed from each other's areas
(this, in turn, we derive from the word "ve'li'Vehemtecha ve'la'Chayah Asher
(a) The Mitzvah of Bi'ur Shevi'is constitutes placing the fruit in a place
where the animals and the wild beasts can trample on it, and declaring it
Hefker (see Tosfos DH 'Misba'arin').
(b) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar learns from the extra 'Chaf' in "be'Artzecha"
(or from "*Asher* be'Artzecha") - that once the Z'man ha'Bi'ur arrives, the
fruit must be destroyed (i.e. declared Hefker) in Eretz Yisrael, to the
extent that, if it was taken outside Eretz Yisrael, it must be returned.
(c) According to the Rabbanan, the fruit may be destroyed wherever it is.
(a) Rav Safra accepted the opinion of Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Ika - because he
took great care to record exactly what his Rebbe had said - like Rachbah of
(b) "Ami be'Atzo Yish'al, u'Maklo Yagid Lo" - is a hint that the Halachah is
like the lenient opinion ('Kol ha'Meikal Lo, Yagid Lo').
(c) Rachbah was not certain whether he heard the ruling from Rav Yehudah or
from Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'a, who lived in the same generation - so he quoted
both opinions. It appears that, since Rachbah was in doubt, he used the word
'Rabbi' (with a Kamatz), instead of Rebbi; some (such as Rabeinu Chananel),
added an 'Alef', to make this point clear).
(a) We learn from "le'Ochlah" - 'le'Ochlah, ve'Lo le'Hefsed', that it
forbidden to spoil Shemitah-produce.
(b) The Gemara tries to justify Rebbi Ila'i by differentiating between
fully-ripe fruit (which is forbidden) and fruit that is not yet fully ripe
(which is permitted).
(c) Rav Nachman quoting Rabah bar Avuha said that the 'Mascheli' of Orlah (a
protective covering of the dates [Rashi in Berachos] which appears on the
fruit when it is not yet ripe, and falls off when it becomes ripe) are
subject to Orlah, because they protect the fruit. In any event, he refers to
the unripe fruit as a 'P'ri', thereby refuting the previous answer.
(d) The Gemara attempts to resolve the problem by establishing Rav Nachman
like Rebbi Yossi - who includes 'Semader' (the initial stages of a grape,
when the fruit is far from ripe) in the Din of Orlah. Rebbi Ila'i, who cut
down the date-palm, holds like the Rabbanan, who disagree with Rebbi Yossi.
According to them, an unripe fruit is not considered a fruit.
(a) The Gemara goes on to quote the opening words of the Tana 'Kol
ha'Ilanos, mi'she'Yotzi'u' (meaning, when the leaves grow) in Nisan. Already
then, the fruit is called a P'ri, leaving us with a Kashya on Rebbi Ila'i.
(b) The Gemara quotes Rav Asi's statement, in order to dispense with the
Kashya 'perhaps the author of that Mishnah is Rebbi Yossi, and we have
already explained that Rebbi Ilai holds like the Rabbanan? However, that
cannot be. Why not? Because it is the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yossi who consider
Boser (a later stage in the grape's development than Semader) the first
stage of grape. Consequently, if, as Rav Asi says, explaining the Mishnah
which considers Giru'a a fruit (regarding Bi'ur) 'Hu Boser, Hu Giru'a, Hu
(ke')Pul ha'Lavan' - then the author of the Mishnah must be, not Rebbi
Yossi, but the Rabbanan.
(c) The tree that Rebbi Ila'i cut down was a male palm, the Gemara finally
answers. Consequently, the dates that grew on it would never ripen, and were
therefore not subject to the Dinim of Shemitah.