ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 48
(a) Rami bar Chama explains that Rabah, who says 'Ho'il' (since guests might
come etc.), follows the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer, whom we have already
explained, permits baking the Matzos before declaring Chalah, because he
holds 'Ho'il' (since he could take Chalah from each dough separately);
whereas Rav Chisda, who does not say 'Ho'il', holds like Rebbi Yehoshua, who
does not hold of 'Ho'il' either.
(b) The Gemara refutes that connection, because perhaps ...
1. ... Rebbi Eliezer will agree with Rav Chisda, that 'Ho'il' does *not*
apply to someone who bakes from Yom-Tov to weekday - because (unlike in
*his* case, where, the moment the owner places the doughs into the oven,
'Ho'il' aready applies to him practically) in Rav Chisda's case, practically
speaking, 'Ho'il' does not apply immediately, since he has yet to invite the
(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah did not want to explain Rebbi Eliezer because of 'Tovas
Hana'ah Mamon' and Rebbi Yehoshua, 'Einah Mamon' - because even if we were
to do so, and Rebbi Eliezer were to hold 'Tovas Hana'ah Mamon, this would
not remove the Isur of "Lo Sa'aseh Kol Melachah" through a forbidden act. It
is better to establish the Machlokes by 'Ho'il', in which case, one will
only be transgressing Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei, which does not require
an act, but comes by itself.
2. ... Rebbi Yehoshua will agree with Rabah, that 'Ho'il' *does* apply -
because (unlike in *his* case, where it is unusual to separate a small piece
from each Chalah - in which case, one of the doughs is definitely forbidden
both to him and to guests) in Rabah's case, the dish that he cooked is at
least fit for guests (who are common).
(a) Rebbi Zeira did not accept Rami bar Chama's explanation - due to Rebbi
Yehoshua, who asked Rebbi Eliezer 'li'Devarecha, Harei Hu Over Mishum "Lo
Sa'aseh Kol Melachah". According to Rabah, why did Rebbi Eliezer not reply
that he holds of 'Ho'il' and that there is therefore no Melachah?
(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah answers from the Beraisa, where Rebbi Eliezer asked Rebbi
Yehoshua 've'li'Devarecha, Harei Hu Over Mishum Bal Yera'eh u'Bal
Yimatzei'?, and, although Rebbi Yehoshua did not answer him there and then,
he does answer him in our Mishnah, where he says 'Lo Zehu Chametz
she'Muzharin Alav'; so why can we not assume that Rebbi Eliezer too,
answered Rebbi Yehoshua elsewhere?
(c) Since Rebbi Eliezer said to Rebbi Yehoshua in the Beraisa 'li'Devarecha,
Harei Hu Over Mishum Bal Yera'eh u'Bal Yimatzei', he must hold 'Tovas
Hana'ah Mamon' - otherwise (bearing in mind what Rashi wrote earlier DH
'Aval Hacha' - that 'Ho'il' cannot place the dough in his Reshus), there is
no reason why he should transgress 'Bal Yera'eh u'Val Yimatzei'. When the
Gemara made the statement to the contrary, it was not yet aware of this
(a) Rebbi Nasan quoting Rebbi Eliezer - says the opposite: namely, that the
maximum Shiur of dough that may be kneaded, is three Kabin of wheat and two
of barley, because he holds that barley becomes Chametz quicker than wheat.
(b) When Rebbi Yishmael himself gave the Shiur as *three* Kabin of wheat and
*four* of barley - he was referring to poor quality grain, where *three*
Kabin of wheat is equivalent to *two* of good quality grain, and *four*
Kabin of barley, to *three*.
(c) We see from here that whereas barley loses only a *quarter* of its
volume when it deteriorates, barley loses a *third*.
(a) Rav gives the minimum Shiur for kneading dough for Matzah as a
(b) The above Shiur is also the Shiur from which Chalah must be taken.
(c) The 'Chameshes Reva'im Kemach' given by the Mishnah in Chalah as the
Shiur Chalah is synomymous with the Melugni'an Kav (Both are the equivalent
of *five* Lugin (of Tzipori).
(a) According to Rav Yosef, one may not knead more than *three* Lugin on
(b) Abaye's Kashya that by doing so, one relieves oneself of the obligation
to separate Chalah - is easily answered, because we hold like Rebbi Eliezer,
who says that the basket combines the loaves to make up the Shiur Chalah -
even *after* they have been baked.
(c) The basket combines the loaves, according to Rebbi Eliezer, irrespective
of whether they stick together in the oven, or *not*.
(a) The Gemara asks whether the vessel combines only when it has a rim and
all the loaves are it is the inside of the basket that combines it, and a
flat vessel which has no rim does not have an inside, or whether it is the
air of the basket (that is above its floor) which combines, in which case it
will combine even when there is no rim.
(b) The Gemara does not resolve the Sha'aleh, but remains with a 'Teiku'.
(c) Rebbi Yehoshua holds that also the oven combines the loaves to make up a
Shiur Chalah (See Hagahos ha'Gra).
(d) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that Kikros shel Bavel - which, due to
their thickness, tend to *stick together* in the oven whilst they are being
baked, are combined by the oven, but not loaves that do *not*.
(a) According to the Chachamim, the three women may not begin kneading
simultaneously, since this will inevitably cause a waiting period, which, in
turn, will lead to the doughs becoming Chametz. So what they must do is
stagger their work: one of them kneads first; then, when she starts
preparing the dough, the second one begins to knead; and when *she* starts
preparing the dough, the third one starts kneading.
(b) Rebbi Akiva, in support of the Chachamim, points out that not all women
work diligently, not all wood burns well, and not all ovens are that well
heated (in which case, Raban Gamliel is really asking for trouble by
permitting all the women to begin kneading simultaneously).
(c) In any event, the moment the woman perceives that the dough is about to
rise, she should prevent this from happening by dipping her hands in cold
water and smearing the threatening dough.
(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, Si'ur - is when cracks first appear in the
dough (rendering it Chametz Nokshah).
(b) According to the Chachamim, both of these fall under the category of
Siduk and are real Chametz. Si'ur - is when the dough turns pale.
(c) 'Zeh ve'Zeh, Chayav Kares' - is actually Rebbi Meir's comment on Rebbi
Yehudah's statement (which differentiates between 'ke'Karnei Chagavim' and
'Nisarvu Sedakav'); Rebbi Meir considers them both proper Chametz.
(d) Rebbi Meir disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah because, he maintains, a crack
on top of the dough signifies many cracks below the surface.