This is a שיעור for the תלמידים of the ישיבה גדולה of Miami and for anybody else who wants to join. This is concerning the דין that if somebody leaves his house before פסח whether he has to be מבער חמץ or not. The גמרא says in פסחים דף ו' עמוד א', אמר רב יהודה אמר רב, המפרש והיוצא בשיירא, someone who leaves, goes out with a group and he's leaving his house, קודם שלושים יום, if he leaves before 30 days before פסח, אין זקוק לבער, he doesn't have to destroy the חמץ. תוך שלושים יום, זקוק לבער. If it's within 30 days that he leaves, he has to be מבער, he has to search for חמץ, has to be מבער. אמר אביי, אביי said, הא דאמרת תוך שלושים יום זקוק לבער, this that we said that if you leave within 30 days you do have to be מבער the חמץ, לא אמרו אלא שדעתו לחזור. It's only if he plans to come back at ashes בימי הפסח. If you plan to come back in middle of פסח, then if you leave within 30 days you have to destroy your חמץ before you leave. אבל אין דעתו לחזור, אין זקוק לבער. If you don't plan to come back in middle of פסח, you don't have to destroy the חמץ, because you're not coming back. אמר ליה רבא, so רבא said to him, I don't understand, ואי דעתו לחזור, if the guy knows before that he's planning to come back in middle of פסח, אפילו מראש השנה נמי, even from ראש השנה, which means, really here it doesn't mean the יום טוב ראש השנה, it means even from beginning of the year, the guy leaves his house a day after פסח and there's חמץ in the house, and he knows he's not coming back, he's coming back in middle of פסח next year, and he has to be מבער also. אלא אמר רבא, therefore רבא said like this, הא דאמרת קודם ל' יום אין זקוק לבער, this that we said that before 30 days you don't have to destroy, לא אמרו אלא שאין דעתו לחזור. If you don't plan to come back, then if you leave before 30 days you don't have to be מבער. If you plan to come back, then if and it's only אין זקוק לבער, but if you're דעתו לחזור, if you do plan to come back in middle of פסח, אפילו מראש השנה זקוק לבער. You have to destroy it, even from the beginning of the year you have to destroy it. In other words, there is a מחלוקת between אביי and רבא. אביי says that if you leave before 30 days, even if you plan to come back, you don't have to be מבער. Even if you come back in the middle of פסח. And רבא says it's not so. If you plan to come back in middle of פסח, you have to be מבער no matter when you when you leave. When is there a difference between קודם ל' יום and after ל' יום? That's if you don't plan to come back in middle of פסח. So there there's a חידוש, that even though you don't plan to come back in middle of פסח, but if you're leaving within 30 days, the חיוב of השבתה, ביעור is there on you on you also. What we have to understand is what's the סברא of אביי? Seems like רבא's קושיא is a major קושיא. If דעתו לחזור בימי הפסח, if you plan to come back in middle of פסח, and you'll come back and חמץ will be in the house, you'll be עובר בל יראה ובל ימצא. So why shouldn't there be a דין that you have to be מבער whenever you leave? Like רבא says, what's the סברא of אביי? Which means in other words really, what is the סברא of the מחלוקת אביי and רבא? So now in ליקוטי שיחות חלק ל\"ה, page 65, the רבי talks about it. That's what the רבי writes there, and I'll read the words. והנה במצווה שקיומן בזמנים מיוחדים, if there are those מצוות that have a time when you have to do them, אם קיום המצווה דורש הכנה והכשרה, if to do the מצווה you need a preparation, כגון, for instance, תקיעת שופר. You have to blow שופר on ראש השנה, שצריך להתאמן ולהתרגל כדי שיוכל לתקוע. You have to prepare yourself, you have to train yourself, you have to get a שופר. או אם צריך להשתדלות מוקדמת כדי להשיג חפצי מצווה, or if there is a need to try to get the object of the מצווה, ד' מינים וכדומה, מובן לכאורה שחיוב ההכנה מתחיל לפני זמן קיום המצווה. לכאורה, it comes out that you have to prepare it, there's a חיוב on you to prepare it before the time of the מצווה, כדי שבבוא הזמן יוכל לקיימה כתיקונה, so when the time comes you'll be able to מקיים it. So you have to do it before. And then in הערה 32 the רבי writes an example from this גמרא: על דרך זה מצינו לעניין מצוות עשה דתשביתו. We find it regarding the מצוות עשה of destroying the חמץ. The גמרא פסחים דף ו' עמוד א', the גמרא we just quoted, and he quotes the לשון of the גמרא, that what רבא says that if דעתו לחזור, if you plan to come back in middle of פסח, אפילו מראש השנה זקוק לבער, you have to be מבער even whenever you leave, even from the beginning of the year, דכי הדר בימי הפסח עובר עליו, because when you'll come back, no matter when you left, when you'll come back in middle of פסח you'll be עובר, and then you won't be able to מבטל as רש\"י says. So the רבי brings this example, and then he even adds that in שולחן ערוך אדמו\"ר הזקן, אורח חיים סימן תל\"ו סעיף ו', it says clearly וזה שיצא מביתו ולא יחזור קודם הפסח, the one that leaves his house and is not coming back before פסח, כי כשיגיע חצות יום י״ד לא יוכל לבער, לבדוק ולבער החמץ שבביתו, and when you'll חצות of יום י״ד you won't be able to be מבער the חמץ, so בשעה זו שהוא מפסיק מביתו, the moment he leaves the house, חל עליו חיוב a מצות תשביתו מן התורה, מדאורייתא. Whenever you leave, you have to, because beforehand you know you're gonna come back, and חמץ will be there, you have to destroy it מדאורייתא. And he brings that the חינוך is משמע like that also, because מן התורה אין חילוק אין חילוק בין תוך ל׳ יום וקודם ל׳ יום. There's no חילוק before ל׳ and not ל׳. So here the רבי, we פסקן like the רבא, the רבי explains רבא׳s שיטה, that seems like רבא׳s שיטה is that the reason why there is a חיוב to destroy the חמץ before you leave מדאורייתא, when the חיוב only is פסח, but because there's a חיוב מדאורייתא beforehand to make sure that when the time comes you'll be able to fulfill the מצוה, so מדאורייתא you have to destroy it before. That's רבא׳s שיטה. So it comes out לכאורה לפי זה that what's אביי׳s סברא, that אביי disagrees with this? If this is the סברא of רבא and אביי disagrees, so the מחלוקת of אביי and רבא is like this: רבא holds this of this דין that you are מחויב beforehand to make sure that when the time comes to the מצוה you should be able to fulfill the מצוה, and אביי disagrees. אביי says no, when the time comes you'll have to do the מצוה, but before the time there's no חיוב. So therefore if you left like before פסח, two months before פסח, at that time it wasn't פסח yet, there's no חיוב to be מבער. When the time will come, that's when the חיוב will start. Now you will come home, and you didn't have a חיוב before, so now you'll destroy it, but there's nothing wrong because there's no חיוב before to do it. That's what it seems like from here is the סברא of אביי. From the רבי, the way we learned פשט in רבא, is משמע that that's what אביי argues and there אביי holds that there is no חיוב before. But that's really hard to say, because it's משמע from most of the places and the רבי here himself explains that בפשטות there is a חיוב. It's hard to say that there is no חיוב before. That means when a person leaves the house two months before ראש השנה, knowing that ראש השנה he will not have a שופר wherever he is going to, there is a חיוב for him to prepare a שופר before. And go further: if a person has a שופר ערב ראש השנה, and he breaks it, and the next day doesn't have a שופר, so if there is no חיוב before to prepare before, then he's not עובר anything. There's no חיוב to prepare before, so ערב ראש השנה when he broke the שופר, it's nothing wrong, there's nothing to do with, שופר is nothing. Came ראש השנה, he has no שופר, it's אונס רחמנא פטריה, the תורה פטר him because he's an אונס. But if you hold that there is a חיוב before, so if he broke the שופר ערב ראש השנה, and ראש השנה he has no שופר because of that, he's called מבטל מצות עשה בידים. So the רבי is משמע that this is a שיטה that is אנגענומען. So to say that אביי argues with this, you could say it maybe, but it's a דוחק to say. And the רבי, in the הערות goes even further, that לכאורה there seems to be, this is a מחלוקת between the מנחת חינוך and the צל״ח. Where do we find this מחלוקת? Because it says in the beginning of פסחים, דף ג׳ עמוד עמוד ב׳, a story with the גוי who used to come to ירושלים every year and eat from the קרבן פסח. And he came to ר׳ יהודה בן בתירא and he told him, \"The תורה says I can't eat, and I get from the best piece of meat from the קרבן פסח.\" ר׳ יהודה בן בתירא realized, he saw he is a גוי, so he realized that there's a problem here. So what did he do? He told him, \"Do you ever get from the אליה?\" אליה is the fats, the best part. But that's a part that you don't eat, it goes to the מזבח. So the גוי didn't know, so he told him, \"Next time you go, ask them for the אליה, that's even better.\" Came next year to ירושלים and he asked them for the אליה and they said, \"The אליה? Who told you to ask for the אליה?\" He said, \"ר׳ יהודה בן בתירא.\" They knew ר׳ יהודה בן בתירא knew the דין, so they started looking into it, and they realized he's a גוי, and they killed him. And they sent a message to ר׳ יהודה בן בתירא, \"You are in נציבין, and your net is spread out all the way to ירושלים.\" Because from there you caused something to happen here, something that was right. So תוספות asks a קושיא: why didn't he himself go up to ירושלים? You have to go up to ירושלים for the קרבן פסח, for עליה לרגל, why didn't he himself? So one of the תירוצים תוספות answers, because he had no land, he didn't own land in ארץ ישראל. The דין is, the גמרא says it in פסחים דף ח׳ עמוד ב׳, that somebody who doesn't own land in ארץ ישראל is פטור from ראיה, עליה לרגל. Like this there is a דין that every יום טוב, פסח, שבועות, סוכות, you have to go up to ירושלים, and that's called ראיה. ראיה means it says you have to come to see ה׳, and you don't have קרקע, we learned from a פסוק the גמרא says you're פטור from עליה לרגל. Oh, so תוספות says, could be he didn't have קרקע, so he was פטור from going up to ירושלים, so he was also פטור from the קרבן פסח. And therefore, he didn't go up to ירושלים, because he didn't have to go. Comes the משנה למלך, it says on the גליון of the גמרא there, משנה למלך asks, this whole גמרא that if you don't have קרקע you're פטור from עליה לרגל, it's only עליה לרגל. Where does it say you're פטור from קרבן פסח? קרבן פסח is a different דין. You're still חייב to go there for a קרבן פסח. Comes the צל״ח, and the צל״ח says תוספות never meant that if you don't have קרקע you're פטור from the קרבן פסח. You're פטור from going up to ירושלים. Automatically you're not there. If you didn't go up, you're not there. And if you're not there, you don't bring the קרבן פסח. So you're פטור בקרבן פסח, not because there's a דין on the קרבן פסח that you're פטור. You're there because you're דרך רחוקה, you're not there, so you don't bring the קרבן. That's what תוספות means. So that's why he didn't go up because he was פטור from עליה לרגל, וממילא he didn't bring the קרבן פסח. Comes the מנחת חינוך, and the מנחת חינוך says, \"I don't understand the צל״ח.\" He says דבריו אינם מובנים לי, his words are not understood to me. What do you mean because he didn't have a חיוב to go up to ירושלים for עליה לרגל he's פטור from the קרבן פסח? ועוד מצות עשה על כל ישראל לעשות הפסח ככל מצות עשה שבעולם. Every ייד has a מצוה—forget about עליה לרגל—every ייד has a מצוה to bring the קרבן פסח like every מצוה. ומחוייב לילך מקצה הארץ להקריב עצמו ולקיים מצות עשה. And he has to go wherever he lives, no matter what, he has to go up to do the מצות עשה of קרבן פסח, regardless whether he has a מצוה עליה לרגל. And he says, הא תו לולב ושופר כי לא יהיה מחויב לקנות קודם החג, ובחג אינו נמצא, וכי אינו מבטל מצות עשה ובזה המצות עשה עצמה? If a person doesn't buy a לולב before סוכות, and סוכות he doesn't have one, so he's not called מבטל מצות עשה? Because he had to before סוכות go and do it. So לכאורה it's a strong קשיא. אלא מאי, how do we learn בפשטות? That that's a מחלוקת. The צל״ח learns דוקא אזוי, you don't have to. There's no דין that you have to go up, you have to do preparations for a מצוה before the time of the מצוה. And ממילא here, if he'd have a מצוה עליה לרגל he would be there, but he had no מצוה עליה לרגל. אלא מאי, you should go up for the קרבן פסח? There's no דין you have to go up for the קרבן פסח. If you're there you have to bring the קרבן פסח. That's how the צל״ח learns. Seems like by every מצוה it seems like. But you don't there's no חיוב of הכנה. It's not part of the חיוב of the מצוה. While the מנחת חינוך says no, how could that be? And therefore he says it can't be that he didn't have to go up to bring the קרבן פסח because he's פטור from עליה לרגל, but he's חייב for the קרבן פסח. So לכאורה here it comes out that it's a מחלוקת. This idea is a מחלוקת between the צל״ח and the מנחת חינוך. But the רבי in the הערה doesn't say that. The רבי in the הערה says these words: that באמת the רבי says, even the צל״ח agrees, because the רבי said that it's hard to say that he holds that there is no חיוב to do a הכנה to the מצוה before, but he says, דבריו אמורים רק לענין דרך רחוקה שהוא פטור מיוחד. That what the צל״ח meant was only this דין specifically by קרבן פסח. By קרבן פסח there's a special דין of דרך רחוקה, which means it tells you that if you're not in ירושלים, there's a דין that you're פטור. So it's not like every other מצוה where you're פטור when the time comes you're completely חייב, אלא מאי if you don't have it you're פטור, so there we say there's a חיוב to prepare before you should have it. But by קרבן פסח there's a פטור מיוחד. So I just want to דרך אגב, and so by the way, from here we see that the רבי says clearly that it's hard it's hard to say that someone should hold that there's no חיוב to go before. If there is, it's a סברא that the צל״ח probably is because of קרבן פסח specifically, because of a פטור מיוחד. I just want to mention דרך אגב, what does it mean פטור מיוחד? Where do we see a פטור מיוחד by the קרבן פסח? All the תורה says that if you were טמא or if you were far away and you didn't bring it, then you bring פסח שני. It's like a דין concerning פסח שני, that you could bring פסח שני if you didn't bring פסח ראשון because of because of a דרך רחוקה. Where does it say it's a דין that you're פטור from פסח ראשון from קרבן פסח because of because of דרך רחוקה? So ווייסט דו, the רבי learns not like that. The רבי learns that this is a דין in פסח ראשון, that there's a דין that if you don't if you're not in דרך if you're in דרך רחוקה, not close, you are פטור from קרבן פסח. Not the פשט is פטור because you're not there so you can't bring it, it's like an אונס. You're לכתחילה there is no דין of קרבן פסח if you're פטור. He learns it's a דין in פסח ראשון. And לכאורה you could say the reason where does the רבי get this סברא that, oh besides the fact to answer the צל״ח, but the סברא is because otherwise why does the תורה mention, I was saying a סברא, why does the תורה mention דרך רחוקה? If you were in דרך רחוקה, you bring פסח שני. Why mention דרך רחוקה? If it's because you weren't there, you just happen not to be there, you're an אונס, any אונס. אונס רחמנא פטריה. Now, so by every time there's an אונס you're פטור. Here the תורה gave you a second chance. So why did the תורה mention the example of דרך רחוקה? You were טמא or דרך רחוקה. So ווייסט דו is that the תורה is trying to tell you there's something specific with דרך רחוקה. ממילא the רבי learns, at least according to the צל\"ח that the דרך רחוקה is a דין in קרבן פסח ראשון, and ממילא you are פטור. But otherwise the רבי says that's clear that according even according to the צל\"ח, there is no such thing as you're פטור from preparing. So ממילא it's hard to say that אביי who says that you don't have to prepare before, if you leave, knowing you're not coming back till פסח, I mean middle of פסח you're coming back, you don't have to, if you leave before thirty days you don't have to do anything, it's hard to say because he argues on רבא and he holds that the reason is because there's no חיוב to prepare before. So we must find another reason for the מחלוקת between אביי and רבא. So what you can say is like this. I once heard from הרב פאקארסקי the ראש ישיבה of 770, he quoted a אבני נזר. But the truth is I looked for it once, more than once, and I couldn't find it in the אבני נזר, but he said in אבני נזר. And it happens to be a very interesting ווארט. And the ווארט is like this. We find, he explains the מחלוקת between the ראשונים whether חמץ, what's the reason why חמץ is אסור במשהו? We know that חמץ gets mixed into other things is במשהו, there's no שיעור of ביטול, no דין of ביטול בשישים, etc., etc. What is the מחלוקת? So in שולחן ערוך, brought down in the רמ\"א, that the רמב\"ם holds because חמץ is a דבר שיש לו מתירין. We know that any איסור that eventually will become מותר, while it's still אסור it doesn't become בטל. Now, חמץ is a דבר שיש לו מתירין because it's only אסור on פסח, after פסח it'll become מותר. ממילא it's a דבר it's like אפילו באלף לא בטיל, so it's not בטל ב- not בטל ב- it's במשהו, not בטל בשישים. And then you have the מרדכי and the אור זרוע, they say a different reason. The reason why חמץ חכמים made אסור במשהו for a different reason, different reasons because חומרא דחמץ, other reasons. Now, what is the reason why according to the other ראשונים they don't give the reason that it's not בטל בשישים or anything because it's a דבר שיש לו מתירין, לכאורה it's a simple reason, everyone knows דבר שיש לו מתירין doesn't become בטל? So the פשט as the reason is, as the מפרשים say, because it'll become מותר after פסח, and then the next year פסח, if it's still around it'll become אסור again, that's not a real דבר שיש לו מתירין. That's what they hold. But then the אבני נזר gave a different reason. Made a, he set a חקירה: what's the איסור of חמץ? Is the איסור of חמץ חמץ, when is it אסור? בפסח. Or is the איסור חמץ בפסח? Which means the combination of חמץ בפסח, that's the איסור. In other words, this first סברא is there's a חפצא של איסור, there's an object which is אסור, that's חמץ, but not always אסור. When is the time it's אסור? Comes פסח, it's אסור. It's the same חפץ. During the year it's called חמץ and then comes פסח, that object becomes אסור. Or you could say it's not חמץ, חמץ together with the זמן, the צירוף of the חמץ with פסח is a together is the איסור, is the חפצא של איסור. על דרך like someone would say, you know, בשר is אסור. בשר, meat is אסור? Meat is אסור, it's not אסור. Now meat is אסור if it's mixed with with milk. We don't say that. We don't say meat is אסור, but if it's mixed with milk, the mixture of meat with milk that's the חפצא של איסור. נפקא מינה לגבי the ענין of חתיכה נעשית נבלה, the רבינו אפרים, etc. But that's the, but the טענה is, he says that you could say these two ways. You could say חמץ is אסור, the חפצא is חמץ, the איסור and the זמן of איסור is פסח, or the combination, when חמץ together with the זמן comes, then it's אסור. Now this could be the מחלוקת between the רמב\"ם and the other ראשונים. If you hold חמץ the חפץ of חמץ is אסור on פסח, פסח is the זמן, that means after פסח, when the זמן goes away, the same חפץ remains but becomes מותר. That's called a דבר שיש לו מתירין. That's what the רמב\"ם learns, that's a דבר שיש לו מתירין, because the איסור is חמץ, and חמץ will is אסור on פסח, מותר after פסח. But the other ראשונים hold that the איסור is חמץ בפסח. The חפץ is חמץ together with the זמן of פסח. That will never become מותר. What will happen is that after פסח it'll change, it will become a different חפץ. It'll be חמץ without חמץ בפסח, because it's not פסח anymore. But the חפץ that's אסור, which is חמץ בפסח, will never become מותר. חמץ בפסח is always אסור. אלא מאי, it could be it will change from being חמץ without פסח. ממילא they don't say the סברא that this is a דבר שיש לו מתירין, because that איסור will not be. Now according to that, we could say לגבי our case also, What's the מחלוקת אביי ורבא is the מחלוקת in this ענין. Why? Now, the רבי in the שיחה that we quoted before, the main נקודה of the שיחה, it's in פרשת וירא in חלק ל\"ה. What's a שיחה about these ענינים have to do with פרשת חומש בראשית? It's פרשת וירא where it talks about being מחנך children, and the רבי asks a מוראדיקע קשיא: Why is the whole ענין of חינוך a דין דרבנן and not מדאורייתא? Why מדאורייתא are you not מחויב to train your children to do the מצוות beforehand? לכאורה, since they have to start doing it when they become בר מצוה, so you have to prepare before. If you don't teach them before, the day they become a בר מצוה they won't know how to do all the מצוות, so they will certainly be עובר. So the רבי asks a שאלה, לכאורה it should be חייב. And the רבי goes on with this ענין that before the time of the חיוב, you are obligated, like we said before, to prepare yourself to make it that when the obligation comes you'll be able to you'll be able to do it. So here also, when a child is a קטן, there's an obligation that he should do the מצוות before, so when the חיוב will come, then the דין will be that he then the fact will be that he will be able to do it. That's the רבי's קשיא. And the answer that the רבי gives is like this: The case of the קטן is not the same as a regular case when you're not מחויב yet and eventually you're מחויב, like the case of being מחויב שופר on ראש השנה, so you're מחויב before ראש השנה, make sure that when ראש השנה comes, you'll be able to do it. Here it's different. This is the לשון of the רבי: The קטן שנתגדל, כיון שקטן פטור מכל התורה כולה, a קטן is פטור, this is on page 66, ולא שייך בו בהיותו קטן שום סרך של חיוב מן התורה. When he's a קטן, there's not a there's no connection to a חיוב מן התורה. והתחלת כל המציאות של חיוב אינה אלא משנתגדל. The whole beginning of a חיוב is only when he becomes a גדול. לכן he says, אם מצד טבע הדברים נחוץ זמן של לימוד והכנה שיוכל לקיים כל המצוות, so if the nature is that when the time comes of the חיוב, you will start first learning then, הרי זמן הכנה זו מן התורה מתחיל רק לאחר שנתגדל. The הכנה starts only when you become a גדול. And you can't say the problem that he should have prepared before. When is that whole כלל? That's the רבי's כלל. When is the whole כלל that if you have a מצוה when the time comes you have a חיוב before to prepare? If you're in the גדר of the מצוה. You're in the גדר of the מצוה, אלא מאי the חיוב is not here yet, but the מצוה you are מחויב in that מצוה. So you could say you're מחויב in that מצוה. But if a person is not the גדר חיוב at all, it's not שייך, then we don't say this כלל. So לכאורה, we could say the same thing here also. We could say בנוגע this מחלוקת also: If you hold that the חיוב is חמץ, when is the זמן of the חמץ? פסח. So then, even before, if you have that חפצא, the חמץ in your house, half a year before, whenever it is, and the חיוב will come on פסח to destroy that חמץ, so here we say yes, when you leave, you've got to make sure that you'll destroy it because you have a חיוב today to do something בנוגע this מצוה. But if you hold the חיוב is חמץ בפסח, so it's not only that you don't have the חיוב yet, you don't have the חפצא on which the חיוב is. The whole חיוב is to destroy חמץ בפסח. Today there is no such thing as חמץ בפסח. So if you hold the other way, today there is חמץ. חמץ has a time when it's אסור, it'll be later, you're חייב today. But if the איסור is חמץ בפסח, then there is nothing to there's nothing today. So it's almost like the קטן that there is no גדר of חיוב at all. And therefore, you would be פטור. And that could be is the מחלוקת between אביי and רבא. אביי says that you have no חיוב before you come, even though you know you're going to come in middle of פסח and there'll be חמץ there, you have no חיוב מדאורייתא to destroy it before. Why? Because before is not פסח yet, so you have no connection to that מצוה at all. That's why he says you can do it. And רבא says no. רבא says that the דין is that you have to destroy it before because he holds that there's a חיוב to do it before because the חפצא is there. The חפצא is not the חפצא of חמץ בפסח, the חפצא is the ענין of חמץ itself, and now the חמץ is there, אלא מאי the זמן didn't come yet, okay, so then there's a דין, and that could be the מחלוקת between אביי and רבא. Now based on this סברא, these two צדדים, we can explain a few things. Two צדדים that the אבני נזר says: One of the things is, the גמרא says in פסחים דף ה' beginning עמוד א', that even though the תורה says, שבעת ימים שאור לא ימצא בבתיכם, seven days you should not have חמץ in your house, you might think days, but nights is מותר. It's not so. And for sure the איסור בל יראה ובל ימצא starts from the night of פסח. The גמרא says why? Because איתקיש השבתת שאור לאכילת חמץ. The פסוק, we see the פסוק compares destroying חמץ to eating חמץ. And eating חמץ is compared to eating מצה. Where do we see the connection of destroying חמץ to eating חמץ? It says שבעת ימים שאור לא ימצא בבתיכם כי כל אוכל מחמצת ונכרתה. Don't have, destroy your חמץ because you shouldn't eat חמץ. And where do we see eating חמץ is connected to eating מצה? It says כל מחמצת לא תאכלו בכל מושבותיכם תאכלו מצות. Don't eat חמץ and in all your houses you should eat מצה. And therefore, since מצה, I mean the the דין of מצה it says בערב תאכלו מצות that you should eat מצה at night, ממילא the destroying of חמץ starts from the night. The איסור of eating חמץ starts from the night and ממילא the איסור of this of destroying starts from the night. Now, תוספות asks a קשיא, according to this היקש that we compare, the גמרא says later on that there's a מחלוקת of רב שמעון and רב יהודה, whether ערב פסח eating חמץ is a לאו. רב יהודה says it's a לאו ערב פסח from the middle of the day, and רב שמעון says it's not. Now, לכאורה, how could it be a מחלוקת? Here we have clear that the איסור of this, the חיוב of of the eating חמץ, yeah, is like destroying חמץ. Now, לכאורה, here we're comparing the פסוק compares, the פסוק says, I'll read the פסוק again. The גמרא says איתקיש השבתת שאור לאכילת חמץ ואכילת חמץ לאכילת מצה. What we see in the פסוק that we compare the destroying of חמץ to the eating of חמץ. Now, therefore the דין should be that we should have to destroy based on so from this פסוק we should learn out, not like רב שמעון. תוספות says מהכא ליכא למילף מיניה, that you can't learn it out from here, תוספות says, because we only compare אכילת חמץ להשבתת of חמץ is only from the night. And בפשטות the פשט is because that night the פסוק that says that you should not eat חמץ compared to eating מצה, the פסוק says כל מחמצת the the פסוק says I mean שבעת ימים שאור לא ימצא בבתיכם, so the פסוק says seven days, so we're talking about the seven days, not the day half a day before. So we can't compare the half a day before, because the פסוק is not talking about half a day before. So this is the לשון of תוספות, מהכא ליכא למילף מיניה דלא הוקשה אכילת חמץ להשבתת שאור שמשש שעות ולמעלה, the comparison of אכילת חמץ to destroying חמץ is not from the שש שעות ולמעלה, אלא להשבתת שאור של שבעת ימים, only for seven days. Now, it's like this, תוספות asks that why don't we say that since there is a היקש between the חיוב of destroying חמץ to the איסור of eating חמץ, so we have to also compare and say that just like the חיוב of destroying חמץ is ערב פסח also, so the איסור of אכילת חמץ should also be from ערב פסח? So then why does רב שמעון hold that there's no איסור אכילת חמץ ערב פסח? And why does רב יהודה need a special לימוד for it? And תוספות answers that the היקש is only the destroying the חמץ from the night. Okay? But לכאורה what was the הוה אמינא of תוספות? The פסוק says clearly שבעת ימים. So how did תוספות have הוה אמינא that we're comparing even from the ערב פסח when the whole דין of the פסוק is only שבעת ימים and not from ערב פסח? So you have to say that תוספות learned that the היקש is not comparing the timing, it's comparing the ענינים: the ענין of אכילת חמץ to the ענין of השבתת חמץ. The fact that the פסוק is talking about the seven days and it doesn't talk about the afternoon, that's a side thing. The main thing is the ענינים. So since the the תורה compares eating חמץ להשבתת חמץ, so ממילא it should even apply to ערב פסח. That's the קשיא. And the answer is, not like that. We do say it's only compared to שבעת ימים. But the שאלה is what was the הוה אמינא and what was the מסקנא? Why did לכתחילה תוספות think that we are comparing the ענינים, not the time where it's a שבעת ימים, and the מסקנא is, no, we're comparing time also? So, based on what we said before, we could explain it that way. We could explain it that the סלקא דעתך of תוספות is that the זמן of the of חמץ of פסח is only the זמן of the חמץ, of the איסור חמץ, but it's not a חלק of the חפצא of חמץ. And if the זמן is a side thing, so we're just comparing the ענינים חמץ עם חמץ גופא, the eating of חמץ to the this to תוספות asks to the destroying of חמץ. אי the תורה is only talking about at night, nevertheless תוספות says, but the ענין of חמץ is the same, the time is just happened to be the time. And the מסקנא of תוספות is that no, that the איסור of חמץ is חמץ בפסח. זאת אומרת the זמן חמץ is part of the חפצא. ממילא when we compare to the איסור, it has to be to the way it's at night because that's part of the חפצא of the איסור. ממילא תוספות says we can't compare it to the day. This explains another thing here. The גמרא says in פסחים that רבי אבהו said that wherever it says לא יאכל, לא תאכל, לא תאכלו, it also includes איסור הנאה. So the גמרא goes on asking קשיות. Then the גמרא asks about חדש: there's an איסור חדש, you can't eat the new crop before you bring the קרבן עומר. The תורה says, \"ולחם וקלי וכרמל לא תאכלו עד עצם היום הזה,\" and we are allowed to have הנאה from it. But the גמרא answers because there's a special פסוק. But in ירושלמי they have the same שאלה, and the ירושלמי answers these words: \"שניה היא\", which means חמץ חדש is different, \"שקבע הכתוב זמן\", the תורה gave it a זמן. Which means, as the קרבן העדה טייטשט עס, the תורה made איסור חדש only for a certain time, and afterwards it's מותר. After the time it's מותר. So therefore, before the time it's מותר בהנאה, even though you can't eat it, before the time it's מותר בהנאה because, and it's not like other places where it's the איסור is forever. And that's what the ירושלמי means. In the גליון הש\"ס there on the ירושלמי, he asks a קשיא: according to this סברא, later on the ירושלמי wonders why we need a special פסוק that חמץ is אסור בהנאה. That's the גמרא discussed it later. The שאלה is why does the גמרא discuss it? לכאורה it should be the the גמרא says it says why the גמרא asks: it's a איסור in ירושלמי, the ענין of we said before that's anything that has a זמן is not אסור בהנאה. So לכאורה, since we פסקן like רבי שמעון that חמץ לאחר הפסח is מותר מדאורייתא, so it's so has a זמן, so it's ממש like חדש. That's why we need a פסוק that's אסור בהנאה. In other words the שאילתא the שאילתא בתרייתא, why does the גמרא have to look for a פסוק, the גמרא wonders why you need a פסוק, here we have a simple thing why we need a פסוק. The reason, that's what גליון הש\"ס says, the reason why we need a פסוק is because otherwise we would think it's מותר, because we just said that anything, even though it says the פסוק לא תאכלו, anything that has a זמן, and after this זמן is going to be מותר like חדש, is מותר בהנאה, so we would think it's מותר בהנאה. So he answers, the the גליון הש\"ס there answers like this: there's a חילוק between חדש and חמץ. חמץ see, like חדש, you could keep the חדש till after the זמן, and then it'll be מותר באכילה. It'll even be מותר באכילה afterwards. So here, the ירושלמי says good that it's since it's מותר, it can be then it's it's הנאה is מותר, because you see you'll be able to have הנאה from it afterwards. But חמץ, that since the דין of חמץ is, besides not eating, you have to destroy the חמץ when the time comes, ממילא you will never be able to have הנאה from it. In other words, he טייטשט עס that the whole פשט in these words that חמץ חדש is because it has a זמן, it's מותר בהנאה, because the fact that there's a possibility to leave it and you'll have it after פסח, so ממילא that shows that this object is מותר בהנאה, you could come to הנאה. So ממילא we learn that even the time when it's still אסור, because you will have הנאה from it. But since חמץ you could never have הנאה from because you have to destroy it, so if you can't have הנאה from it, where do we see it's מותר בהנאה, therefore it's אסור. We can't learn out from the fact that it has a זמן that it should be מותר בהנאה. And therefore, what you need a פסוק, it's אסור anyway, even though it's after פסח it's going to be מותר if you have it, but למעשה you won't have it, because you're going to destroy it. באמת, based on what we said before, we can answer the קשיא a little differently, based on the אבני נזר: that if you hold like this צד that the איסור is חמץ בפסח, so we cannot say that חמץ is a איסור שקבוע לו זמן. The whole קשיא was, just like by חדש there's an איסור קבוע לו זמן, it's מותר בהנאה, so ממילא we would say by חמץ also, since it's קבוע לו זמן, that it's מותר בהנאה. But if you hold that חמץ is חמץ בפסח, it'll never become מותר. It has no זמן. חמץ בפסח is always אסור. The only thing is, most of the year there isn't the חפצא is not חמץ בפסח. So if you would hold that the איסור is חמץ, so that חפצא is קבוע לו זמן, בפסח it's אסור, all year it's מותר. So then the קשיא would be a good קשיא that's like חדש. But if you hold that its איסור is חמץ בפסח, you can't call it קבוע לזמן, because it's not קבוע לזמן. There's no זמן. It's like as if someone would say, you know, that בשר בחלב is not always אסור. If it has no חלב, it's it's מותר. Well, obviously it's not a שאלה. Same thing here, if you hold the איסור is חמץ בפסח. על כל פנים, now to לעניננו, so בנוגע אביי ורבא, so we can learn the מחלוקת אביי ורבא is this מחלוקת, whether the איסור is חמץ or חמץ בפסח. ממילא there's a שאלה, is there a חיוב before to prepare? If you hold that the איסור is חמץ, then there's a חיוב to prepare. That's רבא. And if you hold the איסור is חמץ בפסח, then there is no חיוב to prepare. באמת, we could say that this two סברות is the ביאור in the two סברות brought down in the אלטר רבי'ס שולחן ערוך הלכות פסח. הלכות פסח, סימן תנ״א סעיף י״ג. We know that the אלטר רבי explains there that the how do you כשר something? Anything that was בלע איסור through liquid, you כשר it with הגעלה, through liquid. Anything that was בלע through fire, you have to כשר it through fire. And the אלטר רבי says here like this: אבל כל כלי שנבלע בו החמץ על ידי חמימות האש בלבד, any כלי that was בלע the חמץ just through heat, שלא על ידי משקה, not through liquid, אינו נפלט ממנו אלא על ידי חמימות האש בלבד. The only way it goes out is is through fire, through the heat of fire. And he says that you have to take it and burn it etc., etc., שאז בודאי נשרף כל האיסור הבלוע בתוכו. Then anything that's absorbed in the כלי will go out. Then he says, ויש חולקין על זה, some argue, ואומרים, and they say no, שכל הכלים שבלעו חמץ קודם הפסח אפילו על ידי האש בלבד, any כלי that was בלע חמץ before פסח through fire only, הרי הם מוכשרים על ידי הגעלה. They do, you could כשר them with הגעלה. Why? ובחומרא דכבולעו כך פולטו, the same way it absorbed, the same way it gives out, דכיון שבשעת בליעתן בלעו דבר היתר, since בשעת it was בלע it was not אסור, it בלע a דבר היתר, ואחר כך כשמגיע זמן איסורן כבר אין איסור בעין, and when the זמן comes the איסור is not בעין, it's not there, it's בלוע in the כלי, אלא בלוע בתוכם, it's בלוע inside, לפיכך הקילו להכשירן על ידי הגעלה בלבד. So they were מקיל that you could כשר it through הגעלה itself. That's the second opinion. And the אלטר רבי says, והעיקר כסברא ראשונה, ואפילו בדיעבד, unless it's a הפסד מרובה, whatever it could... So he brings here a מחלוקת whether if it was בלע the חמץ before פסח through fire, then when פסח comes, the first שיטה holds you still got to take it out with fire, and the second saying no, since it was בלע a היתר, it's you don't have to take it out with fire, you can take it out with water, with הגעלה. What's the סברא of the מחלוקת? Now, if you look in, there is a הגהה, not a קונטרס אחרון, a הגהה in the אלטר רבי'ס שולחן ערוך here on the first שיטה, and he goes into a whole אריכות, and he says that first שיטה we said holds that even if it was בלע a היתר, חמץ, you got to take it out through ליבון, through fire. How come by בשר בחלב this דין is not like that? By בשר בחלב, if a כלי was בלע a בשר, בשר is מותר. Later it was בלע חלב. You don't have to And and and it was בלע בשר with fire. Then later when you take it out, you don't have to have fire. And he says the reason is, I will read it from inside, he says, ואף על פי שטעם בשר הנבלע בהם אינו נפלט... How could you say that by בשר בחלב it was בלע first בשר באש, you don't need fire? אי, we know that anything that is בלע באש doesn't come out through הגעלה? מכל מקום איזה מועט טעם בשר הבלוע מועט בתוכם עד שאינו נפלט מהם רק על ידי האור, הרי הוא, הוא מועט, כל שהוא מועט, ואינו כדאי שיחול עליו שם חדש, היינו שם בשר בחלב. So he says like this: Since when it was בלע, it was היתר, and and how much was בלע? Most of it goes out through הגעלה, but since it was בלע through fire, a little bit stays, a very little bit stays. So therefore, when you add the milk to it later, when it got the milk, די להם בהגעלה כדי להפליט מהם עיקר טעם הבשר ועיקר טעם החלב שלא יאסרו מחמתם שהם כדאי ליקרא עליהם שם בשר בחלב. ומה שאינו נפלט על ידי הגעלה לפי שאינם בלועים מאוד ומעט טעם הבשר ומעט טעם החלב שנבלעים בהם הם קלושים מאוד. Normally, when something is בלע through fire, you can't get it out unless with fire. But if it was בלע when it was היתר, it's very little there, ואינו כדאי להיות נקרא עליהם שם בשר בחלב. You can't say that now it has בשר בחלב when you do הגעלה and the little bit that remains. כיון שטעם הבשר הרי קלוש ומעט קודם שנבלע בו החלב, since the טעם הבשר was there very little before it was בלע the חלב, אין שם חדש יכול לחול על טעם הקלוש הזה. So you can't give it a new name. At first it was בשר בלע היתר, now it can become בשר בחלב with an איסור when it's a very little טעם. משא״כ כשנצלה בו חמץ קודם הפסח, but if חמץ went in before פסח through fire, אין הגעלה מועלת להכשירן לפסח. You can't do הגעלה to take it out. אף על פי שהחמץ בשעה שנבלע בו היה מותר באכילה, even though the חמץ that was נבלע, when it was נבלע it was מותר, you could even eat it, חמץ was before פסח, מכל מקום כיוון שהיה עליו שם חמץ לא נפקע שם זה גם מטעם הקלוש שנבלע מעיקרא בתוכו. That because it was called חמץ before and it's called חמץ now, so that same thing will have to be taken out, even though it's a small טעם, על ידי האש. וכשמגיע הפסח ממילא נאסר גם טעם קלוש שיש בתוכו, because even though it was belabeled as מותר, but that same טעם comes פסח right away it becomes אסור. So that same thing gets מחמת שכבר נקרא עליו שם חמץ בשעה שנפלט ונתפשט מממשות החמץ שנצלה עליו. Because it was חמץ before, and the חמץ was מותר. Now came the time when it became פסח, so that same חמץ became אסור. So it's not a שם חדש, and therefore you have to take it out through fire. But בשר בחלב, when it was בלע הבשר בהיתר, then when is it going to become אסור? When something changed, when now it became בשר בחלב. So now you could take it out, because the איסור בשר was, it's קלוש and it was היתר. But here, is this, and the new name can't come because it's just so small, משא״כ here it could come. This is how he explains the first שיטה why, even though it was בלע when it was היתר, you need fire to take it out. Because the same שם what was then, the same שם is now. That's how he explains the אגודה. לכאורה from this we could understand what is the סברא of the other שיטה, that it's the same like בשר בחלב. The איסור is not חמץ. The איסור is חמץ בפסח, which is exactly like בשר בחלב. The איסור is not בשר, the איסור is בשר בחלב. And therefore just like by בשר בחלב we say, since בשעה it was בלע the first time by the fire it was היתר, ממילא when the איסור comes with the next thing it goes on, it's too small, the טעם of the בשר is too little that the new שם of בשר בחלב should be חל, and that's why you don't need to do fire, you could do it הגעלה. Same thing would be by חמץ בפסח. Since the איסור is חמץ בפסח, so before it was היתר, it was חמץ, and now came something else happened to it, now it got a new thing, now it got פסח. So when the איסור, when it comes חמץ בפסח, so it's a new name, exactly like בשר בחלב, and that can't happen. So this explains, if you learn these two שיטות, this explains the two שיטות of the אלטר רבי that he brings here, when חמץ was נבלע in something על ידי האש, and then later it became פסח. So the first שיטה says that you have to do it through fire, because it's the same name like before, it's not like בשר that changed its name, משא״כ the second שיטה will hold that it's like בשר בחלב, it changed its name, and that caused it first time it was היתר, and it's a טעם קלוש, changing the name doesn't work. ועל כרחך you can say that's the מחלוקת is here, you could say that's the מחלוקת is between אביי ורבא. Now, we have to just see how it fits in each of these cases, how we פסקן if they also can fit. Well, obviously, we always do that, that when sometimes we're מסביר a few מחלוקתן based on something, but לאו דווקא we can say that you could explain them all together. Each one independently you could explain, and if it doesn't fit to the way the same one holds in the other place, because over there, there'll probably be a different reason we'll say, but we can look at each place and explain it that it depends on this שאלה of חקירה of that.