ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 51
(a) Abaye queried Rav Yosef's ruling (that a Zar should eat the Chalah which
they had separated from their rice) - from the Beraisa 'Devarim ha'Mutarim
va'Acherim Nohagin Bahen Isur, I Atah Rashai Lehatiran Bifeneihem'.
(b) The Gemara rejects Rav Yosef's contention that the Beraisa applies only
to Kutim, but not to the B'nei Chuza'i - on the grounds that the B'nei
Chuza'i, like the Kutim, also used to search for leniencies, so that the
same stringencies that applied to the Kutim, also applied to them.
(c) Rav Ashi therefore ruled that, if they ate mostly rice, then a Zar
should not eat the Chalah in front of them, in order that they should not
forget the concept of Chalah; but that if they ate mostly grain, from which
they would anyway separate Chalah - which *was* obviously valid, then a Zar
should eat the Chalah that they separated from the rice, though not for the
reason that Rav Yosef gave earlier, but because of the suspicion that they
might just separate Ma'aser from the grain on to the rice (Min ha'Chiyuv Al
ha'Petur) or vice-versa (Min ha'Petur Al ha'Chiyuv).
(a) When Yehudah and Hillel, sons of Raban Gamliel bathed together in the
bathhouse in Kevul - the residents of Kevul began to talk. Immediately,
Hillel went to out the outer-room of the bathhouse.
(b) Kurdekison are light-weight shoes which the Birians considered should
not be worn on Shabbos - because they might slip off one's foot, and one
will come to carry them four Amos in the street.
(c) The gentiles used to place goods for sale on the benches in question,
and the residents of Acco were afraid that anyone who used them would be
suspected of doing business on Shabbos.
(d) People who live far from the main centers, like the inhabitants of
Kevul, Biri and Acco, had little contact with Talmidei-Chachamim, and were
therefore considered like Kutim (inasmuch as they tended to search for
leniencies in Halachah), and it was therefore forbidden to release their
self-imposed Chumros in their presence. (Note: It was not however,
obligatory for someone from another town to adopt their Chumros when not in
their presence, since the Minhagim in question were not established by the
Chachamim (Rosh, end of Si'man 3).
(a) One may not bathe with one's father or father-in-law, with one's
mother's husband or with one's sister's husband - because, in the former two
cases, one may come to think that *that* is where he and his wife came from,
and in the latter two, one may come to similar vulgar thoughts.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah permits bathing with one's father or one's mother's
husband, out of respect for them i.e. so that he should be available to
assist them, should they need him It may also mean that, due to the respect
that one has for them, such thoughts will not enter his mind.
(c) The residents of Kevul prohibited going with one's brother - because it
is a similar relationship to that of one's sister's husband.
(d) It is only forbidden for a Talmid to bathe with his Rebbe, as long as
his Rebbe does not need him.
(a) An animal's stomach is shaped roughly like a bow with a string. The fat
on the bow section is Chelev and is forbidden, whereas the fat on the string
section is Shuman and is permitted. d'Ayatra (the Aramaic eqwuivalent of
'shel Yeser' - meaning' that of the string') is the fat on the string which
the B'nei Eretz Yisrael permit, but which the B'nei Bavel forbid.
(b) When two local Talmidei-Chachamim came to visit Rabah bar bar Chanah -
he hid the d'Ayatra.
(c) Hiding the d'Ayatra, which he was permitted to eat (as we shall soon
see) was something that one only did from Kutim or people who for a number
of reasons, were like Kutim (as we saw in the people Sugyos), but not in
front of Talmidei-Chachamim. That is why Rav Avuha said to the two Amora'im
'Shavinchu ke'Kuta'i!' (See Rosh, Si'man 8, who vindicates Rabah bar bar
Chanah, because of Machlokes, in which case, it is not clear what Rav Avuha
(a) In the area of Halachah, the people in Bavel, who did *not* have
Semichah, were subservient to the people in Eretz Yisrael, who *did*.
Consequently, visitors from Eretz Yisrael were not obligated to follow the
Chumros of Bavel.
(b) Rav Ashi explains that Rabah bar bar Chanah was not bound to adhere to
the Chumros of Bavel, because he intended to return to Eretz Yisrael,
whereas our Mishnah (i.e. the case of Chumrei Makom she'Halach le'Sham - see
Tosfos DH 'Rabah') speaks specifically about someone whose intention was to
(c) Rabah bar bar Chanah told his son that he personally, who had seen Rebbi
Yochanan eating d'Aytera, could be lenient and eat it even not in Rebbi
Yochanan's presence; whereas he (his son) who had not seen him doing so,
should not even eat it in his (Rabah bar bar Chanah's) presence.
(d) Rebbi Yochanan himself quoted Rebbi Yochanan ben Elazar as issuing him
with instructions that even though he himself, having seen Rebbi Shimon ben
Yocha'i eating wild cabbages that had grown in the Shemitah-year after the
time of Bi'ur, was permitted to do likewise, he (Rabah bar bar Chanah), who
had *not* seen him doing so, was only permitted to eat them in his presence,
but not otherwise. And these two rulings are contradictory.
(a) 'Sefichim' are wild seeds that grew without being planted.
(b) Rebbi Shimon permits Sefichim of cabbages after the Z'man ha'Bi'ur -
because the roots (which are above the ground) do not die, but remain in the
fields throughout the winter for the wild animals to eat.
(c) The Rabbanan forbid even the Sefichim of cabbages - because of all other
(d) The Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan is not their own -
they are arguing over what Rebbi Akiva said.
(a) Rebbi Akiva has a problem with the Pasuk "Hen Lo Nizra, ve'Lo Ne'esof es
Tevu'aseinu" - because if one has not sown, from where will the produce
(b) From here Rebbi Akiva derives that Sefichim are forbidden - because it
is from the Sefichim that the produce grows, even when no seeds were sown.
(a) The Seifa of our Mishnah seemingly obligates someone from a place where
work is *not* done to do work in a place where it *is*, to avoid Machlokes.
But what about Chumrei Makom she'Yatza mi'Sham? How can he do work, when it
is forbidden to do so in his home town?
(b) When Abaye answers 'a'Reisha' - he means that 'Mipnei ha'Machlokes' only
applies to the Reisha: 'ha'Holech mi'Makom she'Osin le'Makom she'Ein Osin',
in which case he is obligated to desist from work because of Machlokes, but
not to do work in the reverse case.
(c) According to Rava, 'Mipnei ha'Machlokes' refers to the Seifa - but must
be amended to read 'Ein ba'Zu Mipnei Shinuy ha'Machlokes', meaning that,
even though one is obligated to adopt the Chumros of the local place because
of Machlokes, desisting from work in accordance with his own Minhag will not
lead to Machlokes (because everyone else is working and he is not) - since
there are always people who are not working (because they are out of a job,
for example), so he will not evoke any suspicion by not working.
1. If someone in Chutz la'Aretz happens to know that it was the first day
which the Sanhedrin fixed, may not do Melachah on the second day of Yom-Tov
in an inhabited area, because of Machlokes.
2. He may however, do Melachah on the second day of Yom-Tov, if he is
spending Yom-Tov in an uninhabited area.