PESACHIM 70 (17 Shevat) - Dedicated by Mrs. Idelle Rudman in memory of Harav Reuven Moshe Rudman ben Harav Yosef Tuvia Rudman, who passed away 17 Shevat 5766, in honor of his Yahrzeit.
1)
(a)The author of our Mishnah, which gives the time period for eating the Korban Pesach as two days, is not Ben Teima. Why not? What does Ben Teima say?
(b)How does Ben Teima learn this from the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "v'Lo Yalin la'Boker Zevach Chag ha'Pasach"?
(c)Does this mean that, according to him, no Chagigah is ever eaten for two days?
(d)According to our Mishnah, one may use the Chagigah of the fourteenth as tomorrow's Shalmei Simchah, due a special Derashah (quoted in Chagigah). Why may one not use it for tomorrow's Chagigah?
1)
(a)Ben Teima gives the Chagigah of the fourteenth the same Din as the Korban Pesach, and it may only be eaten for the night of the fifteenth.
(b)In the Pasuk "v'Lo Yalin la'Boker Zevach Chag ha'Pasach" - "Zevach Chag" refers to the Chagigah, and "ha'Pasach", to the Pesach, and the Torah writes "v'Lo Yalin".
(c)It is only the Chagigah of the fourteenth of Nisan, which comes together with the Pesach, that is equivalent to the Korban Pesach. The Chagigos of Yom-Tov day, like regular Shelamim, may be eaten for two days and the intervening night.
(d)One may not use the Chagigah of the fourteenth for tomorrow's Chagigah, because this animal is already obligated to be brought, and one can only fulfill one's fresh obligation with Chulin, not with something that one is already obligated to bring.
2)
(a)How does the Gemara prove that, according to Ben Teima, the Torah compares the Chagigah of the fourteenth to the Pesach - even as regards eating it roasted?
(b)In which other three ways is the Chagigah compared to the Pesach, according to him?
(c)It may nevertheless be permitted to break its bones (e.g. to eat the marrow), even though one may not do so by the Korban Pesach. How might we learn this from the Pasuk in Bo "v'Etzem Lo Sishberu Bo"?
(d)What is the alternative Derashah from "Bo"?
2)
(a)The Gemara proves that, according to Ben Teima, the Torah compares the Chagigah of the fourteenth to the Pesach, even as regards eating it roasted - from the Mah Nishtanah, which reads 'ha'Laylah ha'Zeh Kulo Tzli' (which includes the Chagigah of the fourteenth).
(b)The Chagigah is also compared to the Pesach, according to him, with regard to bringing it specifically from the flock (and not from the herd), male and in its first year.
(c)"v'Etzem Lo Sishberu Bo" - might come to teach us "Bo" 'the bones of the Korban Pesach, but not of the Chagigah'.
(d)Alternatively, we may Darshen "Bo" ' the bones of a Kasher Pesach, but not of a Pasul one'.
3)
(a)One was permitted to Shecht immediately with a knife (a Sakin) that one found on the fourteenth of Nisan in Yerushalayim. If one found the knife on the thirteenth, one was first obligated to Tovel it. Why the difference?
(b)But someone who found a Kupitz (a chopping-knife that was normally used to chop bones), was obligated to Tovel it first, even if he found it on the fourteenth. What makes the Gemara establish this Beraisa like Ben Teima, and what does the Gemara attempt to prove from here?
3)
(a)One can be certain that, on the fourteenth of Nisan, the owner had Toveled the knife that one found then, already on the thirteenth (to allow nightfall to permit the knife to be used on the following day). On the thirteenth however, the possibility exists that the owner lost it before he had a chance to Tovel it.
(b)If the author of the Beraisa (which differentiates between a knife and a chopping-knife) was the Rabanan of Ben Teima, who permit chopping the bones of the Chagigah, then why is the knife that one finds on the fourteenth permitted any more than the chopping-knife, which the owner would definitely have Toveled on the thirteenth, in order to chop the bones of the Chagigah? Consequently, the author must be Ben Teima, who, we must say, forbids breaking the bones of the Chagigah, just like those of the Pesach.
4)
(a)The Gemara then tries to establish the Beraisa even like the Rabanan of Ben Teima, and the reason the owner did not Tovel the Kupitz is because Erev Pesach that year fell on Shabbos (in which case the Chagigah is not brought). What is wrong with this explanation?
(b)Why may one Shecht with the Kupitz immediately, or on the following day (without having to Tovel it), if one found it on the fourteenth that fell on Shabbos?
(c)Under which circumstances is the Kupitz permitted immediately, even if it is found on the fourteenth which is a weekday?
4)
(a)We cannot establish the Beraisa even like the Rabanan of Ben Teima, and the reason the owner did not Tovel the Kupitz is because Erev Pesach that year fell on Shabbos - since the Seifa of that Beraisa deals with the case of Erev Pesach that fell on Shabbos, it is clear that the Reisha does not.
(b)One may Shecht with the chopping-knife immediately, or on the following day (without having to Tovel it), if one found it on the fourteenth that fell on Shabbos - because even assuming that the owner had another knife for Shechitah, and the chopping-knife would not be required for the Chagigah of the fourteenth that year, he would still have had to Tovel it for the Shalmei Chagigah or Simchah of the fifteenth, which would in any case, have to be Toveled on the thirteenth.
(c)The chopping-knife is permitted immediately, even if it is found on the fourteenth which is a weekday - if it is found tied to the knife, since we then assume that they were Toveled together.
70b----------------------------------------70b
5)
(a)We have already explained why we cannot establish the Beraisa by Erev Pesach that fell on Shabbos. Why can we not establish it by a small group, in which case, the Chagigah is not brought.
(b)Ultimately, we establish the Beraisa by a Pesach ha'Ba b'Tum'ah (which does not require a Chagigah either). How did the owner know already on the thirteenth that it might be a Pesach ha'Ba b'Tum'ah?
(c)Why can we not explain that the King had already died on the thirteenth?
(d)Seeing as the King was critically ill on the thirteenth, why do we assume that the owner Toveled the knife but not the chopping-knife?
5)
(a)We cannot establish the Beraisa by a small group, in which case, the Chagigah is not brought - because how would the owner know already on the thirteenth, that he would have only have small group?
(b)The owner knew already on the thirteenth that it might be a Pesach ha'Ba b'Tum'ah - because it speaks when the King was critically ill on the thirteenth.
(c)We cannot however, explain that the King had already died on the thirteenth - because if so, seeing as everybody is obligated to assist in his burial and to become Tamei, it would b e a Pesach ha'Ba b'Tum'ah, in which case it would not be necessary to Tovel the knife.
(d)Seeing as the King was critically ill on the thirteenth, we assume that the owner Toveled the knife - because of the good chance that he would not die by the fourteenth; he would not however, have Toveled the chopping-knife yet, due to the double Safek against his being in need of it: 1. the King might die; 2. Even if he would not, his group might be a small group, and a Chagigah would not be required. And as for the Chagigah of the fifteenth, for that, he still had time to Tovel it on the fourteenth.
6)
(a)Why did Yehudah ben Dursai detach himself from the Chachamim to go and live in the south, far from Yerushalayim?
(b)How did he learn that from the Pasuk in Re'eh "v'Zavachta Pesach la'Hashem Elokecha Tzon u'Vakar"?
(c)How do the Chachamim Darshen that Pasuk?
6)
(a)Yehudah ben Dursai detached himself from the Chachamim to go and live in the south, far from Yerushalayim - because he disagreed with their ruling that the Chagigah is not brought on Shabbos. In fact, he considered the Chagigah to be an obligation no less than the Pesach.
(b)He explained the "Tzon u'Vakar" in the Pasuk "v'Zavachta Pesach la'Hashem Elokecha Tzon u'Vakar" - to refer to the Chagigah of the fourteenth (otherwise, if it referred to the Pesach, how could the Torah write "Tzon u'Vakar", seeing as the Pesach is not brought from cattle?)
(c)The Chachamim explain the Pasuk like Rav Nachman quoting Rabah Bar Avuha, who Darshened that the leftovers of the Pesach-offerings (i.e. those that were not brought as a Pesach), should be brought as a Korban that comes from sheep and cattle i.e. a Shelamim.
7)
(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Emor (written in connection with Succos) "v'Chagosem Oso Chag la'Hashem Shiv'as Yamim ba'Shanah"?
(b)Ravin pointed out that, in that case, the Chagigah is sometimes brought for six days and not seven. When is that?
(c)Why did Abaye reject Ravin's Kashya?
(d)Why did he refer to him as 'Avin Tichla'?
7)
(a)We learn from the Pasuk (written in connection with Succos) "v'Chagosem Oso Chag la'Hashem Shiv'as Yamim ba'Shanah"- that the Chagigah does not over-ride Shabbos. Otherwise, seeing as Succos consists of eight days (seven days of Succos plus Shemini Atzeres), why does the Torah write "Shiv'as Yamim ba'Shanah", and not "Shemonas Yamim"?
(b)The Chagigah will be brought for six days and not seven - when the first and the eighth days fall on Shabbos.
(c)Abaye rejected Ravin's Kashya (that, in that case, the Chagigah is sometimes brought for six days and not seven - so why does the Torah write seven) - on the grounds that the Torah is concerned with most years, and not the odd year when it is only six.
(d)He refered to him as 'Avin Tichla' (which means 'the bereaved') because he suffered the misfortune of burying his children.
8)
(a)Ula quoting Rebbi Elazar, states that one may not use Shelamim that were Shechted on Erev Succos, as Shalmei Simchah or as Chagigas Chamishah-Asar. Why not?
8)
(a)Ula quoting Rebbi Elazar, states that one may not use Shelamim that were Shechted on Erev Succos, as Shalmei Simchah - because the Torah, in Ki Savo, writes "v'Zavchta" ... "v'Samachta" from which he derives that the Shechitah must take place at the time of Simchah (i.e. on Yom-Tov otself); nor as Chagigas Chamishah-Asar, for the reason that we learnt above in 1d. (namely, because he is already obligated to bring this animal, and one can only fulfill one's fresh obligation with Chulin, not with something that one is already obligated to bring).
