Pesachim - All Ten Chapters

Write three questions for any search: when, by what light, and in which places. Decide whether a given room is a place where chametz is brought.

If chametz is eaten or stored in a room, it is a place where chametz is brought. A room where chametz is never brought needs no search under the Mishnah.

Note Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's reason and what motivates the scholar in Abaye's advice.

The reason is that people are at home and candlelight is good for searching. Abaye's advice aims to prevent study from delaying the mitzvah.

Analyze: Reuven rented out an apartment and the keys were handed over on the thirteenth. Who searches according to the baraita?

The keys were handed over before the fourteenth, so the tenant must search. This is a thinking exercise and not a practical ruling.

Analyze a case: a non-Jew leaves chametz in a Jew's home. Ask whether responsibility was accepted and whether it was separated.

If the Jew accepted responsibility and it is in his possession, it is the forbidden case in the sugya. If he did not, the sugya permits it, and practical decision needs a posek.

Explain in your own words why earlier nullification matters according to Rava, keeping search and nullification distinct.

Rava is concerned that important chametz may be found after the forbidden time when it can no longer be nullified. So nullification is done beforehand.

Compare a candle with a torch according to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, attributing the reason to its speaker.

According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak a candle can enter holes and crevices and a torch cannot. A practical halachic conclusion requires further study of the poskim.

List what the Gemara asks about the word 'danger' and how it responds.

The case involves a collapse in which a dog can still search, so the chametz is not treated as eliminated. The danger also concerns searching for a needle after completing the mitzvah search.

Present two cases, one where we saw a weasel take and one where we did not, and state the search status of each.

Saw it take: a search is needed. Did not see: no concern by the Mishnah. Real cases need a posek's decision.

Explain why the same crumbs lead to different results in the two cases.

With the mouse, the crumbs do not account for the loaf it brought in, so that loaf still requires searching. With the child, the habit of crumbling accounts for the crumbs, so no search is needed in that case.

Trace the chain of claim, question and reply: what Rava claims, what the Gemara asks, and what Rav Papa answers.

Rava claims a decree for a cloudy day; the Gemara asks why not forbid at four hours; Rav Papa answers that four is mealtime for everyone.

Someone sells bread to a gentile while eating is permitted but does not know when the buyer will consume it. Compare the two positions.

Beit Hillel permit the sale because it occurs while eating is permitted. Beit Shammai do not permit this sale because the seller lacks knowledge that the bread will be consumed before Passover.

Under this explanation, does stopping ordinary chametz consumption in the fifth hour also require stopping its use as animal feed?

No. Eating ordinary chametz has ended, but a priest may still eat terumah during the fifth hour; on Rabbah bar Ulla’s reading, an Israelite may still feed ordinary chametz to an animal then.

Explain how a person without wood illustrates the Sages’ response to Rabbi Yehuda.

If burning is the only method, lacking wood could prevent elimination altogether. The Sages therefore reject an inference that begins with stringency but ends by leaving chametz in place.

Identify the factor Rabbah examines and the different factor Rav Yosef examines when comparing chametz with an idol.

Rabbah emphasizes the disposal destination: the Dead Sea versus other rivers. Rav Yosef emphasizes the material’s property: whether it dissolves in water.

Two loaves remain after Passover: one belonged to a gentile and the other to an Israelite. What difference does the Mishnah state explicitly?

The gentile’s loaf is permitted for benefit, whereas the Israelite’s is prohibited for benefit. Appearance is not the distinguishing factor in this passage; ownership is.

A student concludes that permission outside its time also permits an intact Jewish-owned chametz loaf retained through Passover. Correct the conclusion using the ensuing discussion.

The discussion confines the permission under consideration to a mixture and distinguishes it from chametz itself. The mixture rule therefore cannot automatically be applied to an intact loaf.

Compare barley matzah with a rice preparation according to the Mishnah, assuming all other preparation requirements are met.

Barley appears in the list and is therefore an eligible species. Rice is excluded under the Mishnah’s approach, so making it into a flat preparation does not qualify it for the matzah obligation.

Explain why Mar Zutra’s permission does not cancel Rava’s initial kneading instructions.

Mar Zutra addresses an event that has already occurred: she transgressed and kneaded. After-the-fact permission does not authorize choosing the prohibited kneading method initially.

Choose one drink and one trade material from the list and explain what their inclusion shows about the discussion’s scope.

Median beer is a drink, and scribes’ glue is a trade material. Their joint inclusion shows that the chapter is not limited to bread eaten on its own.

A student says: They do not involve karet, so they are permitted. Identify the words that contradict the conclusion.

The words stating that these are subject to a prohibition establish that they are forbidden. The absence of karet limits the liability; it does not remove the prohibition.

Construct the definition-and-authority pairing for the permission to feed a dog in this passage.

It is si’ur according to Rabbi Meir’s definition, evaluated under Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling. It is not Rabbi Meir permitting the very si’ur that he requires to be burned.

Identify one point of agreement and one point of disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages.

They agree on karet for fully developed grain chametz. They differ over whether the mixture under discussion carries a negative prohibition, as Rabbi Eliezer holds, or lacks that liability, as the Sages hold.

Explain the difference between completing an olive-bulk using permitted material and consuming an olive-bulk of the prohibited material itself within a mixture.

When permitted material joins, part of the required measure is permitted substance. Under the olive-bulk-within-a-peras explanation, there is an actual olive-bulk of prohibited substance, with its consumption assessed within the relevant time.

Before applying the Mishnah to a small dough residue, which two factors should be clarified from the Mishnah and Gemara?

Determine the amount and location, especially whether there is an olive-bulk in one place. Also determine whether the dough occupies a reinforcing location, the issue addressed by the versions of Shmuel’s teaching.

Describe the three participants’ roles at one moment according to the Sages, and explain how this differs from everyone kneading together.

One kneads, one shapes, and one bakes, with roles subsequently rotating. Rather than all doughs reaching the baking queue together, the work proceeds through staggered stages.

Compare two mitzvah travelers: the first can return, eliminate the chametz, and fulfill the mitzvah; the second would miss it by returning.

The first returns and eliminates it. The second nullifies it in his heart under the Mishnah’s provision for being unable both to return and to fulfill the mitzvah.

Two communities have opposite customs before midday. Describe each community’s practice without extending permission beyond midday.

Where the custom permits work, people work until midday within the Mishnah’s framework. Where the custom is to abstain, they do not work even during that window; the statement does not authorize work after midday.

Following the Mishnah’s wording, compare a traveler from a stricter place to a lenient one with a traveler going in the reverse direction.

In the first case, the origin’s stringency is relevant; in the second, the destination’s stringency is relevant. In neither direction is one community’s leniency alone enough to establish permission.

Explain why the same act of a non-priest eating may be avoided in one community and performed in another.

In a rice-eating community, the concern is losing awareness of ḥallah, so permission is not demonstrated that way. In a grain-eating community, the concern is confusing obligated and exempt produce, so the rice portion’s lack of obligatory ḥallah status is demonstrated.

Distinguish what Hillel did from what he refrained from saying.

He went to the outer room, ending the joint activity. He refrained from telling the community that they were permitted, so his response was not a public argument against their practice.

A student summarizes Rabbi Shimon as permitting all aftergrowth. Correct the summary using the case and reasoning.

The exception concerns cabbage aftergrowth, not all aftergrowth. Rabbi Shimon does not extend the restriction to that exception because of other aftergrowth, whereas the Sages do.

According to Rava, why need an observer not interpret someone’s inactivity as a declaration that work is prohibited?

Inactivity may simply mean that the person has no work to do. Since this is common in the marketplace, abstention is not necessarily a halakhic declaration against local practice.

Explain why Rabbi Meir’s response is not merely a request for more geographical information.

Rabbi Meir replaces reliance on the two regions with a rule based on each locality’s custom. He changes the normative basis of the decision rather than merely requesting a list of towns.

A particular Jericho practice did not draw protest. Explain why, according to Rabbi Yehuda, this alone does not prove the Sages approved it.

Rabbi Yehuda distinguishes the Sages’ response from their evaluation of the act. They may refrain from protesting a practice they do not approve, so the source’s precise terminology matters.

Build two timelines: Passover eve on a weekday other than Friday, and Passover eve on Friday. Mark slaughter, offering, and what follows.

On a weekday: slaughter at seven and a half, offering at eight and a half; on Friday: slaughter at six and a half, offering at seven and a half. The Passover offering follows the daily offering in both, with Friday's extra advance allowing roasting before Shabbat.

Compare slaughter exclusively for another group with slaughter for both the registered group and another group. State the offering's status and what validity means.

Exclusively for the other group, the offering is invalid because it was not slaughtered for its registered participants. For both groups it is valid under the Mishnah, but this does not newly register the other group.

A student summarizes: all opinions here include the daily offering, and every offering slaughtered over leaven is invalid. Correct both generalizations from the quotation.

The inclusion of the daily offering is attributed specifically to Rabbi Yehuda. The quotation says the slaughterer violates a prohibition, but does not here declare the offering invalid.

Sketch three priests between the slaughterer and the altar. Identify who receives blood, where a full vessel moves, and where an empty vessel returns.

The priest nearest the slaughterer receives the blood and passes a full vessel toward the next priest. It reaches the priest nearest the altar for application, while the empty vessel returns in the opposite direction.

Sort slaughter, roasting, removal of entrails' contents, and washing entrails into the Mishnah's two categories.

Slaughter and removal of the entrails' contents override Shabbat. Roasting and washing the entrails do not; connection to the offering alone does not permit every action.

Explain why a preparation forgotten on Friday does not thereby become equivalent to Passover slaughter at its appointed time on Shabbat.

The principle asks whether the act could have been done beforehand, not whether the person actually did it. Passover slaughter differs because it cannot be performed the previous day instead of at its appointed time.

State the contrast Rabbi Shimon emphasizes: what does the valid time window allow, and what is actually done?

Burning is valid throughout the night, so one might think they would wait until dark. Nevertheless, it is performed within the service at its proper time rather than postponed.

Examine two cases: Passover on a weekday in purity with little meat, and Passover on Shabbat in purity with little meat. Is an accompanying festival offering brought in each?

In the first case it is brought because all three conditions hold. In the second it is not brought because Passover falls on Shabbat, even though the other conditions fit.

Explain why saying that the metal originally became hot from the fire does not resolve the Gemara's concern.

The Gemara distinguishes fire roasting the meat from a hot spit roasting it. Even if fire heated the metal, roasting through the spit's heat is treated here as roasting by something else.

Compare Passover whose meat became impure but whose fat remains with another offering in that situation. Limit your answer to whether to apply the blood now.

For Passover, the Mishnah says not to apply the blood. For other offerings, application proceeds when the fat remains; this does not answer the separate after-the-fact question for Passover.

A student concludes that leaving pure Passover meat is permitted because there are no lashes. Correct the conclusion and give the Gemara's two explanations for the absence of lashes.

No lashes does not mean leaving meat is permitted. Rabbi Yehuda points to the positive command to burn the remainder, and Rabbi Yaakov to the prohibition's lack of an action.

State separately the legal classification question about changing the partition and the discussion's final resolution status.

The question is whether changing the partition constitutes a change of place or group. There is no affirmative or negative resolution here, because the discussion ends with teiku.

A student interprets this as allowing her first decision after slaughter about which offering counts as hers. Correct this using the Gemara's answer.

The Gemara interprets preference as preference at the time of slaughter. It therefore provides no proof for a new post-slaughter choice that retroactively determines the offering.

Explain why the statement that the first arrival secures a share for the siblings supports Rabbi Yoḥanan's reading rather than new registration upon arrival.

If the siblings had not been registered beforehand, they would need to join after slaughter, which the Gemara excludes. They are therefore already registered, and the race serves as encouragement.

Build a table for joining and withdrawing, listing the Sages' and Rabbi Shimon's deadlines according to Abaye.

For joining: both opinions set slaughter as the deadline. For withdrawal: the Sages set slaughter, and Rabbi Shimon sets blood application.

Compare an individual able to eat the offering according to Rabbi Yosei with a group of one hundred whose members cannot each eat an olive-bulk.

Rabbi Yosei permits slaughter for the individual able to eat the offering. Slaughter is not performed for the group whose members cannot each eat an olive-bulk, despite its large size.

List the four reasons in the quotation for missing the first offering, and state their shared consequence without inferring karet liability.

The reasons are impurity, a distant journey, error, and compulsion. In each described case, one who did not perform the first performs the second; karet requires the subsequent discussion.

Draw two conceptual boundaries: one based on the distance of Modi'im and one on the courtyard threshold. Attribute each correctly.

The Modi'im-distance boundary in every direction belongs to Rabbi Akiva. The courtyard-threshold boundary belongs to Rabbi Eliezer; these are alternative definitions, not cumulative conditions.

Correct this summary: second Passover has no Hallel at all, and therefore requires neither roasting nor matza.

Second Passover does not require Hallel during eating, but does require it during the offering's performance. Like the first, it is eaten roasted with matza and bitter herbs.

A student argues that every later Passover must be eaten in haste because that is how it was eaten in Egypt. Respond using the word on which the interpretation rests.

The interpretation emphasizes 'that one': the Passover in Egypt is eaten in haste, not another Passover. The haste requirement therefore cannot automatically be transferred to later generations.

Summarize in three sentences: what the Mishnah forbids, what it requires of the poor, and Rav Huna's reason.

One may not eat near Minchah until dark; the poor person reclines and receives four cups; Rav Huna: because of the obligation of matzah even Rabbi Yosei agrees.

Go over four postures and decide which count as reclining according to the baraita.

Lying on the back and reclining to the right do not count per the baraita; reclining to the left is inferred and is not stated in the cited passage.

Prepare a table: who said what about the two dishes, keeping each opinion distinct.

Rav Huna: beet and rice. Hizkiya: fish and egg. Rav Yosef: two kinds of meat. Ravina: meat with its cooking broth.

List the Mishnah's stages from 114a–116a in their order.

First cup, bringing vegetables and dipping lettuce, bringing matzah, lettuce, charoset and two dishes, then the second cup and the question.

Arrange the baraita’s alternatives: a son who can ask, no son able to ask and no other questioner, and two scholars.

A son who can ask questions his father. Otherwise the father’s wife asks him; if no one else asks, he asks himself. Two scholars ask each other.

Phrase an opening sentence according to Rav and one according to Shmuel, keeping the difference.

According to Rav: at first our ancestors were idol worshippers. According to Shmuel: we were slaves.

Open the passage at Deuteronomy 26:5 and mark where it ends according to the Mishnah, and check the role of 'according to the son's understanding'.

The Mishnah says 'until he finishes the entire passage', and the father adjusts the teaching to his son's understanding.

Match each property of charoset (tartness, thickness) to the remembrance it represents, keeping each view with its speaker.

Tartness is a remembrance of the apple per Rabbi Levi, and thickness a remembrance of the mortar per Rabbi Yochanan. Abaye combines both.

Mark on a text of Hallel the two endpoints of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.

Beit Shammai stop at 'a joyful mother of children' and Beit Hillel at 'the flint into a fountain of water', and both conclude with redemption.

For each of the three things write the reason and verse the Mishnah gives.

Pesach: that the Omnipresent passed over (Exodus 12:27). Matzah: that they were redeemed (Exodus 12:39). Maror: that the Egyptians embittered (Exodus 1:14).

Match each cup to the mitzvah done with it according to the sugya, and note what is not allowed between the third and fourth.

First cup: Kiddush; second: the Haggadah and beginning of Hallel; third: Birkat Hamazon; fourth: completion of Hallel and the blessing of song. The Mishnah does not permit additional drinking between the third and fourth.

Decide for each blessing whether it is thanksgiving or petition according to the sugya.

In Shema and Hallel: thanksgiving, 'ga'al'. In the prayer: petition, 'go'el'.

A table of three interpretations of afikoman with their speakers.

Rav: from group to group. Shmuel: birds for me and goslings for father. Rabbi Yochanan: dates, roasted grain and nuts.

Write the two sides of the question and the study hall's answer.

One side: the kohen, because of the benefit. The other: the child's father, because of the mitzvah. The answer: the father says two blessings.