The Gemara here in in דף כ״א בפסחים, beginning of the פרק, beginning of the second פרק, the Mishnah says: כל שעה שמותר לאכול, מאכיל לבהמה ולחיה ולעופות ומוכרו לנוכרי. As long as in Erev Pesach you're allowed to eat chametz yourself, you're allowed to feed it to the בהמה, ולחיה, to birds, ומוכרו לנוכרי, as long as you're allowed to eat, you're allowed to sell it to a goy. ומותר בהנאה, and you're allowed to have any hana'ah from chametz as long as you're allowed to eat it. עבר זמנו, when that time passes, אסור בהנאה, then you can't have any hana'ah. And then the Mishnah goes on, but the other part of the Mishnah doesn't nafka mina to our inyan. Comes the Gemara, quotes from the Mishnah: ומוכרו לנוכרי. The Mishnah says you're allowed to sell it to a goy. So the Gemara asks: peshita. Well, obviously you're allowed to sell it to a goy. If you're allowed to eat chametz yourself at that time, so it's before the זמן איסור, so you're allowed to sell it to a goy. So the Gemara answers: לאפוקי מהאי תנא. The Mishnah tries to tell us that the halacha is not like a certain tanna, that according to a certain tanna you actually wouldn't be allowed to sell. And that's what the Mishnah tells you you're allowed. What's the tanna? So the Gemara

quotes a baraita. דתניא, it says in a baraita, בית שמאי אומרים: לא ימכור אדם חמצו לנוכרי אלא אם כן יודע בו שיכלה קודם הפסח. You're not allowed to sell your chametz to a goy before Pesach unless you know the goy is going to eat it up before Pesach. In other words, according to Beis Shamai, if chametz was yours, you can't get rid of it by selling it to a goy. You actually have to make sure it doesn't exist on Pesach. And if a goy would have it, you sell it to a goy and it exists on Pesach, you are over, because you have to make sure that on Pesach it's not there if it was ever your chametz. ובית הלל אומרים, and Beis Hillel say: כל שעה שמותר לאכול, מותר למכור. Beis Hillel says as long as you're allowed to eat, you're allowed to sell it, and that means all the way till the end. And you sell it to the goy right before the end, the goy is going to have it throughout Pesach, we don't care. Beis Hillel says we don't care. Then it says, רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר, and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira says: כותח וכל מיני כותח, כותח and all kinds of kotach. Kotach is a kind of dip that was made of chametz. It's like a kind of dip that they used to make with bread crumbs. Ah, and it's cheese! Kotach is mentioned in Pesachim לגבי the דינים of chametz, kotach is mentioned in Yoreh De'ah לגבי the דינים of בשר בחלב because it was milchig. But what's נוגע here is not the milk, but it had bread crumbs, and it would last very long. It wasn't like something you eat, you just dipped into it. So Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira says that kotach and all kinds of כותח, אסור למכור שלושים יום קודם לפסח. You can't sell it for 30 days before Pesach. And what the Mishnah meant to say, not like Beis Shamai. The Mishnah says that as long as you're allowed to eat on Erev Pesach, you're allowed to sell it, so the Gemara asks peshita. It was not so peshita. Beis Shamai says that you're allowed to eat, but you're not allowed to sell, and our Mishnah says that you're allowed to sell. This is what the Gemara says. Now,

when it comes to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira, there is a machloket between Rashi and Tosafot what Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira learns. Does he learn like Beis Shammai, or does he learn like Beis Hillel? Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel is a clear machloket. Beis Shammai says you're not allowed to sell it before Pesach unless you know it's going to be finished before Pesach, does not give time. Beis Hillel says you can sell it till the last minute, there is no problem. Comes Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira and says כותח you're not allowed to sell for 30 days before Pesach. Zogt Rashi azoy: שלושים יום, דסבירא ליה כבית שמאי. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira holds like Beis Shammai בעצם, that normally you're not allowed to sell anything to a goy unless he'll finish it. So what is he trying to tell you with כותח? וזה כותח אינו נאכל מהר, you don't eat it fast, שאין אוכלים הימנו אלא מטבילין בו, you don't eat it, you just dip into it. So therefore, he's trying to tell us that because I hold like Beis Shammai that normally you're not allowed to sell until he can finish it, be sure, be careful, כותח is going to be a long time. So other things you can sell a day, two, three, however long it could last, כותח for 30 days. And what is the cheshbon of 30 days? והני שלושים יום, משעה שחלה עליו חובת ביעור, that's when the halacha of ביעור חמץ starts, ששואלין בהלכות הפסח. So when there's a din that you start talking about Pesach, that's 30 days, in the Gemara in the first פרק it says we learn it out from a pasuk, 30 days, that's why up to from for 30 days you're not allowed to. So pashut peshat according to Rashi, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira holds like Beis Shammai, but he's just trying to explain that according to Beis Shammai, he's trying to show you how far back you have to go, that there is certain things you have to go very much back. Tosafot says, אומר ר״י בשם רבינו תם, דרבי יהודה אית ליה כבית הלל. He holds like Beis Hillel! That means that normally he says you're allowed to sell everything before Pesach to a גוי, ואוסר בכותח, כותח רבי יהודה בן בתירא אוסר's, משום דשם בעליו עליו. כותח happened to be a kind of thing that everyone could recognize whose it is. I mean, that's what it is, everyone made it differently, and ויודעים שהוא כותח של פלוני. People would know that this every time they see, even a goy would hold eat כותח, \"Oh, this כותח, that's this guy's כותח, that guy's כותח.\" ויסברו שמכרו בפסח. And if they'll see the goy have כותח on Pesach, they're going to think that the Yid sold it to him on Pesach, so there's a problem that the Yid had hana'ah from it, he sold it on Pesach. So it's a mar'it ayin type of thing that you're not allowed to do. So Tosafot says clearly that the that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira holds like Beit Hillel. Be'etzem he holds you're allowed to, כותח is the exception that you're not allowed. If everybody knows it lasts a long time, what why would they think? Yeah, but they but they don't know. It looks In other words, it looks just as fresh and it could be just as well sold. People will נכשול, people won't know for sure. But other things you know for sure it's old, it was sold before, but this is something that looks it keeps fresh. This is the machloket between Rashi and Tosafot. The machloket between Rashi and Tosafot is not just peshat in the Gemara, as it seems like, peshat in the Gemara, what does Rabbi Yehuda mean? Does he hold like this like? It's נוגע להלכה. If we hold that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira holds like Beit Shammai, then we don't pasken like Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira, because we don't pasken like Beit Shammai. If Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira holds like Beit Hillel, then we will pasken like Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira. And the

truth is, the Tur brings says clearly that you're allowed to sell chametz to a goy anytime before Pesach, even כותח, he says. And the Beit Yosef on the Tur says, why does the Tur pasken you're allowed to sell כותח? Because the Tur learns like Rashi, that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira who says you're not allowed to sell כותח is because he holds like Beit Shammai, and we don't pasken like Beit Shammai. And the Bach says, this is also the reason why the Rambam, the Rif, the Rambam, and the Rosh, no one brings Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira's din, because they all learned like Rashi, that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira holds like Beit Shammai. Therefore the halacha is not like Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. Comes the the Bach himself, he says, \"But I have problems with Rashi's peshat, I think Tosafot is right. And therefore, if I I say I say Tosafot is right, the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. And therefore, you should be careful, כותח not to sell them, because he holds then it's like Beit Hillel, that everything you're allowed, כותח is an exception because of מראית עין, you shouldn't sell.\" But he says, \"What should I do? That that's not the מנהג העולם, people don't don't aren't careful, and you're allowed.\" And the Tzemach Tzedek says befeirush here that depending on the two peshatim is whether we pasken. That according to Tosafot, that if Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira holds like Beit Hillel, we would pasken like Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, you can't sell כותח, everything else you could, כותח not. And if you look here in the back, there is the Piskei Tosafos, there is a collection of and all the Tosafos, any halacha that comes out lemaaseh from the Tosafos, someone made It goes back many years, it's not something new. So, he brings a halacha from Tosafos: אסור למכור לנכרי כותח שלושים יום קודם הפסח, that you're not allowed to sell, and he brings it not from the Gemara, because since Tosafos says that it goes according to Beis Hillel, so that's the halacha, so we see that's the halacha. But as I said, the Bach has a problem with Rashi. He says like this: according to Rashi, that he holds like Beis Shammai, basically what is the chiddush? Beis Shammai says you're not allowed to sell anything that will not be finished, so obviously כותח takes long, so it won't be finished, so what's he saying? The emes is that Rabeinu Peretz has the same question. Rabeinu Peretz the the Bach is an acharon, but Rabeinu Peretz is a rishon. Rabeinu Peretz says כתב Rashi, and he quotes Rashi that רבי יהודה בן בתירה holds like בית שמאי, ולא נראה לי, he says, \"I don't think it's right. Because היינו בית שמאי.\" Milah if he holds like Beis Hillel, it's a machlokes. Beis Hillel says you're allowed to sell everything, and he comes and says, \"כותח there is a gezeirah derabbanan, there's an extra din.\" But if you hold like Beis Shammai that you're not allowed that you're not allowed, so that's what the Therefore, he holds like it's like like Tosafos like Beis Hillel. But he asks a kashya on Rashi. Then he says, but maybe according to Rashi, what is he trying to add on Beis Shammai? Beis Shammai is talking about חמץ itself, pure חמץ. כותח is תערובת חמץ, is a mixture of חמץ. So Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira wants to add to explain what Beis Shammai says, that even תערובת חמץ you're not allowed. So he says three things. He says, first of all, why would I think תערובת חמץ is different? If you're not allowed, you're not allowed, חמץ is חמץ. Second of all, why does he mention כותח? He should have said תערובת חמץ. And the third thing, he should have said אף כותח, also כותח is So therefore, he says, \"I have a problem with Rashi's peshat.\" What we have to do is farentfern Rashi. Lichora, according how could Rashi say this? Lichora, what is the the chiddush between Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira over Beis Shammai, if that's what Beis Shammai says? Cuz you said it, and all these big people held with him, the Rambam, this, they all held with Who hold with Rashi? Yeah, yeah. Well, even if they wouldn't, we could farentfern Rashi, but the prat I'm saying is this is although all the ראשונים they hold like that. That's one thing here. Then we go on to the Gemara vayter. The Gemara quotes from the משנה, עבר זמנו אסור בהנאה, that when the time passes, you're not allowed to have hana'ah. Peshita! Well, when the time when you're not allowed to, peshita. So the

Gemara says לא צריכא לשעות דרבנן. What it's trying to tell us is that there is a zman that mid'oraisa you're still allowed to have hana'ah, but derabbanan said not. We know that, we have been learning the whole year that חמץ מדאורייתא is only אסור ערב פסח after chatzot. The fourth hour, the the that's the sixth, the fifth hour is is מותר בא- אסור באכילה, מותר בהנאה. But there is an extra hour that the Rabbanan added. That's what the Mishnah means. The Mishnah means עבר זמנו, when the זמן אכילה that the Rabbanan said is assur b'hanaah, that mid'rabbanan there is an extra hour that's assur b'hanaah. That's a chiddush, cuz we know that chametz is assur b'hanaah, but that's mid'oraita. And he quotes a דין דאמר רב גידל אמר רב חייא בר יוסף אמר רב, he quotes a din that Rav Gidel said, המקדש משש שעות ולמעלה אפילו בחטי קורדייתא, if somebody would give קידושין to a woman with חטי קורדייתא, חטי קורדייתא is chametz that became, but it's chametz, it's hard chametz, and you did it משש שעות ולמעלה, which is the sixth hour of the day, when it's only אסור מדראבנן, אין חוששין לקידושין, the קידושין is nothing. It's not קידושין. Ah, mid'oraita you're still allowed to eat this, so this has a value, but mid'rabbanan already it's assur b'hanaah. And that's what he brings as an example to show that there is a זמן מדראבנן that it's assur b'hanaah. This same Gemara was brought down on דף ו׳ עמוד ב׳, the same case of Rav Gidel. There it was לגבי a different inyan. There the Gemara says that when the זמן איסור חמץ comes, you can't be mevatel anymore. Like this we know there is ביטול חמץ, you mevatel the chametz, you nullify it, hefker, whatever the pshat is, and after the זמן האיסור, you can't be מבטל חמץ anymore. Why? Because chametz is not yours to be mevatel. Because Rabbi Elazar said, and this inyan is going to be noge'a to many, to the inyan that we're going to speak, שני דברים אינם ברשותו של אדם והכתוב עשאן כאילו ברשותו. There are two things which truly are not yours, but you see the Torah made it yours: בור ברשות הרבים, and חמץ בפסח. If you dig a hole ברשות הרבים, you're chayav. אה, it's not your hole? But since you made it, you're chayav as if it would have been yours. And chametz, chametz after the זמן האיסור is not yours. Why? I bet you, yeah! And and one of the and what I mentioned then is going to be noge'a to the inyan, but we'll see. So, אינם ברשותו של אדם, so chametz is asur behana'ah. Since it's asur behana'ah, you have no right, no ba'alut over it. How does ba'alut, how do you translate ba'alut? I could sell it, I could use it, I could If you can't, it's nothing, it's not mine. If it's not mine, how am I עובר בל יראה ובל ימצא? The din is you're only over on your chametz. How are you over? The fact that the Torah said you're over is the Torah made it yours, but be'etzem it's not yours, so you have no right to be mevatel it. So after the זמן איסור, you can't be mevatel. Then the Gemara says, what about being mevatel it the sixth hour? So the Gemara, the sixth hour is אסור בהנאה מדראבנן? Since it's אסור מדראבנן, כיון דאיסורא דרבנן עליה כי דאורייתא דמי, like דאורייתא, ולאו ברשותיה קיימא, it's not yours to be mevatel it, ולא מצי מבטל. And the Gemara brings an example to this דין דאמר Rav Gidel, the same case, to show that the זמן of the רבנן you can't be mevatel because it's not yours, because it's אסור בהנאה. So the Gemara says, as Rav Gidel said, if a person is mekadesh a woman with חמץ ערב פסח the sixth hour, this according to Rashi, Tosafot is a different peshat, but according to Rashi, ערב פסח the sixth hour, אין חוששין לקידושין, no חשש קידושין. So this to show that it's אסור בהנאה, and it's valueless. If it's valueless, at that hour also, מדראבנן, you can't be mevatel it, because you can only mevatel as long as it's yours, but it's not yours because it's valueless. So we see this Gemara brought down two places. If you look at Rashi, we see a little difference between the Rashi says it on דף ז׳, explains it דף ז׳, and Rashi here by us, דף כ״ח עמוד ב׳. דף ז׳ Rashi continues and says, asks a kashya. Well, after all, he says, I don't understand, it's only מדראבנן that it's אסור בהנאה, but מדאורייתא it's מותר בהנאה, so מדאורייתא it has a value. So מדאורייתא she's a married woman, she's an אשת איש, and you're telling me there's no חשש for the קידושין? The רבנן are going to take away a איסור דאורייתא? So Rashi says, I'll tell you. The Gemara asks such a kashya in different places, בכמה דוכתי, and we answer, מתרצינן בכמה דוכתי, כל דמקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש, הפקר בית דין הפקר, ואפקעינהו מיניה, whatever it means. When a person gives קידושין, he says כדת משה וישראל, which means he gives it על דעת of the חכמים, so the חכמים have a right. So the חכמים have a right to be מפקיר his money, and say that it's not, and it's and therefore מדאורייתא it's not קידושין. So mashma from this Rashi here that why is it not kiddushin? Because כל דמקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש. The person when he gives kiddushin has in mind that it should fit according to the Rabbanan. If it wouldn't be for that, then the kiddushin would be kiddushin. Rashi on דף כ״ח doesn't mention that. From Rashi here it's mashma, you know why the kiddushin there's no kiddushin? Because it's אסור בהנאה מדראבנן, without the extra din of כל המקדש. The bottom line is, it has a value or not? Who cares if it's מדאורייתא, מדראבנן? Could you do anything with this? Comes the zman, you can't sell it, you can't do with it that, so it has no value. Who cares if it has no value because the Rabbanan said? If it has if it has no value the government lowered the price? What happens if the government said that now this is cheaper and now that it's not worth a perutah, so it wouldn't be mekudash mid'oraita. So who cares if the Rabbanan lowered? That's a משמע פון Rashi, because Rashi says that if it would be after this zman is a דאורייתא, it's pashut that you can't be mekadesh with a איסור הנאה. The chidush is that איסור הנאה מדרבנן you also can't. But it's mashma that it has nothing to do with כל דמקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש, רש״י doesn't mention it here. Now it's possible that Rashi relies on what he said before, but that's not usually if it's נוגע to the pashat, Rashi would have mentioned it. So, and a lot of times you see Rashi repeats, and if Rashi sometimes doesn't repeat because he relies that גופא needs a ביאור, needs a reason why and here he would rely on it. In other words, here, by not saying it must be because he has a reason to skip it here hoping you'll remember and for a certain trying to prove a point by not writing it. Why does what is it here? Okay, so let's get back to this. Let's go back to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira. One thing, it seems, as we see from the kashya of the Beit Yosef and the Bach, that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira obviously is arguing. Says בית הל... Shammai says you're not allowed to sell it unless the goy eat it up for Pesach. Beis Hillel says you are. Rav Yehuda ben Beseira comes and says, כותח you can't sell thirty days. From the lashon, it's mashma that he's not just holding like one, he's arguing, which is basically what the kasha of the Beis Yosef asked. If he's So, the kasha is, milah according to Tosafos, we know what he's arguing about. Like no, but we know what he's saying, what's the argument. Beis Hillel says you could sell everything, he says by כותח I have a gezeirah. But according to בית שמ... according to Rashi, he holds like Beis Shammai, what's he arguing? He's just... but it's a פשט אזוי, I'll tell you what what probably is the pshat. And this case, I think it's right. Sometimes you say a pshat, I don't know, I think it's right. Rav Yehuda ben Beseira, as we learn simple pshat, comes to tell us a chumra which we would not have known from Beis Shammai, right? As that's how I explained it in the beginning. Shammai says you can't sell, comes, he says, like the that's mashma, mashma fun Rashi, כותח, because it takes so long, ooh, this you gotta worry for thirty days, it's not stam that you can't sell it two days before. He's machmir. I want to say that he's mekil. He holds like Beis Shammai and he's mekil. Meaning like this: Beis Shammai holds that this that you're not allowed to sell chametz to a goy unless he'll eat it up before Pesach is a דין דאורייתא. The moment it's a דין דאורייתא, there is no such thing as thirty days. This whole cheshbon that till thirty days there is no din of biur, and from thirty days there is, that's all a דין דרבנן. There's no such thing מדאורייתא. It's all a limud, from a אסמכתא, from a pasuk. מדאורייתא there's no such thing. If you have if the din is that chametz that you can't that you ever owned, you can't give it away to a גוי or something to be on Pesach, it has to be destroyed on Pesach, it has to not exist, it makes no difference if for thirty days, or fifty days, or seventy days. It's a דין דאורייתא, so whatever it is. Comes Rav Yehuda ben Beseira and he says, בפועל I hold like Beit Shammai, but I disagree with them. I hold that this is only a דין דרבנן. And if it's only a דין דרבנן, it's limited to thirty days. So, he's not coming to tell us something more than what we would have thought if we learned Beit Shammai. He comes to be meikil. כותח, the chumra of שלושים יום, and that's all. More than thirty days, not. Which this answers bichlal a she'eilah that some of the mefarshim ask on Beit Shammai, not on Beit Shammai, on the דין of שלושים יום, I mean. What do you mean כותח is gonna last for thirty days? Well, it depends how much כותח you give him. If you give a big bucket, could last for thirty days, if it's a small thing, it'll last two days. What kind of דין can How can you give a דין that כותח is only thirty days? If you give a big bucket, it'll last

more than thirty days. What's the cheshbon of thirty days? Some say that the cheshbon is that even כותח, which lasts long, more than thirty days it won't last, it's gonna get spoiled. But that's not what Rashi says, and the cheshbon of thirty days is because it's gonna get spoiled. Rashi gives a different cheshbon, Rashi says because of שואלין ודורשין, because the chiyuv of ביעור starts by thirty days. But the she'eilah is, if it's mi-de'oraita, what's the cheshbon of thirty days? If this if the כותח will last fifty days, you can't sell it fifty days. So I say that's exactly what he wants to say. He comes to argue against Beit Shammai. And he says, you, Beit Shammai, hold that it's mi-de'oraita, and therefore to you, there is no limit of thirty days, there's no limit of anything. What a year before, Shavuot time, if you know you're gonna give him the chametz and he'll have it next year on Pesach, you can't sell it to him. I'm telling you it's only a דין דרבנן, and therefore it's only thirty days. Tosafos for some reason, and I'm gonna explain the reason in a minute, Tosafos for some reason holds that it's impossible to say that Beit Shammai means it's mid'oraita. We'll see in a minute why.

Since Beit Shammai cannot mean mid'oraita, so Beit Shammai means it's miderabbanan. So, in Beit Shammai's words itself, it's obvious that it's thirty days. So then what is Rav Yehuda ben Beseira saying? So Rav Yehuda ben Beseira is not arguing. That's why Tosafos says I can't say that Rav Yehuda ben Beseira follows Beit Shammai. 'Cause according to Tosafos, if he would follow Beit Shammai, he's not saying anything. That's why I'm forced, Tosafos says, that he holds like Beit Hillel, and I understand why he's arguing. But it's all based on this nekudah, that Tosafos says it cannot be that Beit Shammai holds is mid'oraita. So the bottom line I'm saying, and I didn't explain it yet, I'm saying that the machlokes between Rashi and Tosafos is, Rashi learns that it's possible that Beit Shammai holds that it's mid'oraita. Mimela there's no thirty days, mimela I could say that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira holds it's miderabbanan and then he argues, with it's miderabbanan it's thirty days. Tosafos says Beit Shammai cannot hold it's mid'oraita, there's no such thing, impossible to say that mid'oraita he shouldn't be able to sell. So Beit Shammai definitely means it's miderabbanan. So Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira wouldn't have been arguing, therefore I have to say it's Beit Hillel. Now what is the reason that Beit Shammai, that Tosafos says Beit Shammai cannot hold that it's mid'oraita and Rashi could? Now this is dependent, so I go לשיטתי in something that I explained, like you say by the שבת הגדול דרשה, which be'emet throughout the whole year, this is throughout the whole masechta here, when the machlokes Rashi and Tosafos is in different things, I've been explaining in the shiurim that this is, many things are dependent on this one machlokes in Rashi and Tosafos, which basically I created, created, I figured out it's a machlokes, we made a machlokes, and in many differences it was dependent. From different angles, but it's all based on this one nekudah. What was the machlokes I explained? What is the pshat in the words התורה עשאו כאילו ברשותו? If you remember, it says that chametz is not yours, because it's אסור בהנאה, the Torah made it yours and that's why you're over. So I said there are two ways to learn that. You can learn chametz is not yours be'emet, because it's אסור בהנאה, but the Torah made it yours. It's a chidush of the Torah. So why are you over? Because sof kol sof it's yours, and if it's yours, you're over. There's another way to learn that chametz takeh is not yours and it remains not yours,

but the Gemara means that you're over because it's like yours. But the Torah meant, even though it's not yours, the Torah made a din you're over. It's a חידוש דין. So when we say and the Torah made it like yours, not that it's takeh, and if it would have been yours you would understand you're over, it's simple if it's yours, but the Torah never made it yours. And there are different places in Rashi and Tosafos throughout the first perek where we see their machlokes and I see clearly how it fits between the two things. Mah nafka minah? What's the difference which way? We'll see nafka minah's, we'll see. Be'emet this goes לשיטתי. Last year I did the same thing, the same inyan. Because as I said, there are two inyanim that we say this on: חמץ and בור ברשות הרבים. Last year when we learned Bava Kamma, I explained that בנוגע בור, which is בנוגע all the נזיקין is the same machloket whether you're chayav when there is a מזיק of that causes a היזק, your thing, it belongs to you, ממונו הזיק, does it have to be yours or not? So there's one sevara to say that בור, which is really not yours, in order to be chayav it has to be yours. So the Torah, what's the פשט התורה עשאו? The Torah made it yours. The other way said it doesn't have to be yours. The Torah says if it would be, you're chayav, you're chayav even though it's not yours. And it goes together, and there also there are many Rashi and Tosafot's in Bava Kamma which I see the goes, which way? Rashi learns that it's not yours, the second way, it's not really yours. Tosafot learns that what is the פשט התורה עשאו, that it mamash became yours. The Torah made a chiddush that it became yours, even though it shouldn't be yours, really it's yours. And it's in different places as before. There's one more place, one place which is an important place which I'm going to mention later, but I'll I'll hold it for a second. But in different places we find this. So again, Tosafot learns that the Torah made it yours and this is why you're עובר, Rashi says it's not yours. This as a הסתעפות from these two שיטות will come out a lechora another a difference between Rashi and Tosafot. חמץ before Pesach till the זמן האיסור is yours, right? We're saying when the איסור comes and it becomes אסור בהנאה, it's not yours. When we say that when the איסור comes it's not yours, but the Torah made it yours, what is the pshat? But the Torah made it yours you could learn two ways. Till the זמן האיסור it's yours. The זמן האיסור comes, it becomes, is yours. You know what the Torah does? It continues. The Torah doesn't give you a new din of בעלות, a certain new din. The Torah just said that even though normally as soon as the issur comes your בעלות, your ownership should drop, the Torah says לגבי בל יראה ובל ימצא we continue your בעלות. Or you could say no, it has nothing to do with continuation. Comes the זמן האיסור, חמץ is not yours, the Torah says you're chayav! Whatever the Torah gives it's a new din. These two ways are a result of the previous two ways. If you learn that the pshat is that chametz you're over because it's yours, what do we, what is the pshat it's yours? Chametz is yours till the זמן האיסור. Comes the זמן האיסור, it continues, your בעלות continues. So according to this, so when the issur comes, why are you over? Because your בעלות continued. If you learn the other way that truly it's not yours, so what happens? When the זמן האיסור Now, if we

say that Rashi and Tosafos argue with that first thing, so obviously we're extending it that Rashi and Tosafos argue on this point. According to Rashi, there's no extension of your בעלות. Till the זמן האיסור you're עובר בל יראה, בל י- yeah, till the זמן האיסור it's yours, comes the זמן האיסור it's not yours. The Torah put a new din upon you, you're over. According to Tosafos, the pshat is, till the זמן האיסור it's yours, it should have stopped, and the Torah says whatever was there before is נמשך, continues. Okay. This is the reason why Tosafos says Beit Shammai cannot hold that this is an איסור דאורייתא to sell chametz to a goy. Why? What is the peshat that Beit Shammai holds? Let's understand, if it would be דאורייתא, Beit Shammai holds that you cannot sell chametz to a goy before Pesach unless he'll finish it before Pesach. Let's understand: isn't there a pasuk that says שלך אי אתה רואה, אבל אתה רואה של אחרים? ודרשינן: yours you can't have, but someone else's - it means a goy's, Rashi says a נכרי - you're allowed to. Nu, so what did Beit Shammai say? Beit Shammai says that you're- not that you're not allowed to sell it to a goy, and if you do sell it to a goy, obviously you're over. If a goy buys the chametz and keeps it on Pesach, you're over, you got to make sure to get rid of it. How could you be over when it's the goy's? Obviously- what? Yeah, it's a clear limud, but it's a clear limud, no one argues on the limud. The pasuk says לא יראה לך and we דרשן שלך אי אתה רואה, אבל אתה רואה של אחרים. Obviously Beit Shammai learns that what the Torah means that you someone else's, means whatever was never yours. Chametz of a goy that was never yours, you're not over. If a goy will come in with his chametz into your house, no problem, you have nothing to do with it, you're not over. But chametz that was ever yours, that chametz you are over. That means chametz that you ever owned, if that chametz exists in the world on Pesach, when Pesach comes, we don't care you owned it a week ago, a month ago, Pesach comes, you are עובר. Let me ask you: how are you עובר? According to Tosafos, you know how you're עובר on חמץ? Because there is an extension of your בעלות. In this case, there's no extension. Since you you owned it before, you sold it, since you sold it to a גוי, it's his בעלות, so how could your בעלות be extended? Milah according to Rashi, it had nothing to do with extension of בעלות. Torah said you're עובר. So just like we say the Torah said you're עובר if you owned it till Pesach, Beit Shammai it could be that if you owned it ever, comes Pesach and the Torah makes you makes you עובר on it. Who cares if it belonged to a גוי in the middle? But according to Tosafos, as we established at first, as long as the Peshat is it's an extension of your בעלות, how could it be? And that's exactly it. Comes Tosafos and says, how in the world can you tell me that Beit Shammai holds מדאורייתא you're not allowed to sell it to a גוי, which means if you sell it to a גוי before Pesach, when Pesach will come you'll have a problem, you'll be עובר? How in the world could that be? Why does Tosafos say it can't be? Because Tosafos לשיטתם hold that the whole idea is the extension of the בעלות, in this case there's no extension of בעלות. So the only thing that Tosafos could think of, what does Beit Shammai mean, so how can Beit Shammai- he thinks just that, the opposite of the whole thing. Oh, מדרבנן, that's no problem. מדרבנן is no problem. מדאורייתא you could sell it because it's not yours, מדרבנן said not. Just like the whole דין מדאורייתא we've learned in the Gemara that you can do ביטול חמץ, ביטול בעלמא סגי, and that's it. Came the Rabbanan and they said no, bitul is not enough, you got to destroy it. So the same thing, mid'oraisa you could sell the chametz because the moment you sell it before Pesach it's not yours, the Rabbanan said we don't want you to sell it, it's not enough if you sell it, it has to be destroyed also. It's no problem, so it's a דין דרבנן. But Rashi, Rashi could say, I can understand Beis Shammai being a דין דאורייתא, because according to me, what's the problem? The Torah says, comes Pesach, any chametz- Beis Shammai holds any chametz that you owned, you're over. Beis Hillel says it's only if you owned it till the last minute, and Beis Shammai says if you ever owned it. But what's the problem? So that's the difference. So Rashi holds that Beis Shammai could hold it's mid'oraisa. Mimela Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira we could say he holds like Beis Shammai. How is he arguing? He holds mid'rabbanan. No problem. And according to Beis Shammai, since it's d'oraisa, there's no din of thirty days. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira holds it's mid'rabbanan, so he says there is thirty days. Tosafos says, I, if I cannot learn that Beis Shammai holds it's d'oraisa, I must admit that Beis Shammai holds mid'rabbanan, so how could Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira hold like Beis Shammai, so what's he arguing? That's why Tosafos says, I have to say that he holds like Beis Hillel. There's another נקודה how we could be מסביר why Tosafos cannot learn like Rashi, that Tosafos cannot learn that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beseira holds that I mean that Beis Shammai holds it's mid'oraisa. So a simple thing: there's a din of bitul chametz. You can be mevatel, we all know that, mid'oraisa you can be mevatel chametz. When you are mevatel chametz, chametz is not yours, but the chametz is still around in the world. How does Beit Shammai's din fit with the din of bittul? Beit Shammai says that if you ever owned chametz, you can't sell it to a goy, and so so you have to so you have to make sure that it doesn't exist. So what does bittul help? Does it make sense? And Beit Shammai argues on bittul? No such thing! Everyone agrees bittul is no question in the Gemara, no דעה that Everyone agrees to bittul. How does it make sense? Now I'll tell

you, the kashya I'm asking is only according to Tosafot, not according to Rashi. We learned before, what is the geder of bittul? Machloket Rashi veTosafot. Rashi says bittul is תשביתו. It's a the form of destruction. It's a mental destruction. You could destroy it physically, and you could destroy it in your mind, you decide it's like עפר, so it's a mental destruction. It's תשביתו. That's what Rashi says since the Torah says תשביתו. Tosafot says pashut, bittul is hefker, that's all it is. You're mafkir, it's not yours anymore. It's not yours and not the Eibershter. According to Rashi I have no kashya. Beit Shammai says you can't sell it because it's going to exist. But bittul is something else. Bittul, in theory, in halacha, it doesn't exist. So whatever. The only kashya is according to Tosafot. Tosafot, bittul is what's hefker? You lost your ownership. Tos-- Beit Shammai says clearly that giving up your ownership doesn't help. Giving it to a goy doesn't help, how does hefker help? So Tosafot says very clearly: I can't learn that Beit Shammai holds it's a דין דאורייתא, because it's against the whole דין of bitul! So I must say Beit Shammai holds it's a דין דרבנן. But Rashi has no problem. Beit Shammai could be דאורייתא, because איי, there's bitul? No problem, there's bitul, but still you're not allowed to sell it, because bitul is תשביתו and you're not allowed to sell it. So that's another reason why Beit Shammai, why Rashi and Tosafot argue. The truth is that the two reasons I gave stem from one נקודה. What was the basis of the מחלוקת we said before between בית ש- Rashi and Tosafot, whether it's an extension of the בעלות or not, what's it based on? How you learn the פשט that the Torah made it yours.

The מחלוקת between Rashi and Tosafot whether bitul is hefker or תשביתו is also based on that. What? If you hold חמץ is the Torah makes it ממש yours, then the only way to get rid of it is by hefker. This mental type of thing is not enough when something is ממש yours. The Ran says, but if you hold since חמץ is not really yours, that's why a form of bitul is enough. So it comes out that the whole מחלוקת between Rashi and Tosafot is Rashi holds that the Torah never make chametz after זמן איסור חמץ it's not really yours, so with bitul you can get away with. Tosafos says that it's mamash yours, you have to have hefker. So the reason for this machlokes of טעם הפקר of ביטול הפקר תשביתו is based on that. The sevara we said before whether it's an extension are based on that. These two reasons are reasons why they argue with Beis Shammai uBeis Hillel, but they're based on the on the same נקודה. They come out from the same נקודה. Okay. So this explains this Rashi and Tosafos. Based on this, let's go to the other ענין. It looks like another ענין, but it'll be a המשך to this. What was the other thing? Rav Gidal. Rav

Gidal said that after המקדש אשה בזמן שעות דרבנן, בזמן איסור דרבנן, so it's not אין חוששין לקידושין. This whole din of שעות דרבנן, that Rabbanan made a certain hour that's also אסור בהנאה, even though mid'oraita it's מותר, בכלל we can learn two ways. As we find in many cases of תקנת חכמים. Sometimes the Chachamim make a תקנה, their own תקנה, for whatever reason they decided they make a תקנה, גזירה תקנה. Sometimes that תקנה is an extension of the דאורייתא'דיקע דין. That in other words, it's not that they made a new din. It's really the d'oraita, but d'oraita is limited. For instance, בשר בחלב we gave the example. That is בשר עוף בחלב is mid'rabbanan. So it's not the peshat that the Rabbanan made a new din of בשר עוף. They took the din of בשר בהמה which is assur, the din of basar b'chalav is limited to a בהמה, so they extended it. So basically it has all the qualities of de'oraita. Because of that we say a gezeira, normally by a דין דרבנן we don't say גזירה לגזירה, you can't make a gezeira to a דין דרבנן. But here we find by basar b'chalav for instance that all the גזירות that רבנן made, that you can't eat on one table meat and, you can't do it by בשר עוף. Why? איי it's גזירה לגזירה? So the answer is, if it would be a new דין דרבנן, it's a גזירה לגזירה. They just extended the de'oraita, and all the דינים of de'oraita

apply. What is this שעות דרבנן? This extra hour that רבנן made that you can't have hana'ah, the extra hour you can't eat, is this a din they made as a gezeira, it's a new din, or is it an extension? The time, they just extended it. It's possible be'emet that this I think I maybe I mentioned it once, this is a machloket on דף ב׳ עמוד ב׳, could be this a machloket is there between Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov and the חכמים, the Gemara uses לגבי this hour of דרבנן'דיקע חמץ, the Gemara says here, one says, brings a re'aya from here, says this is like de'oraita, the other one says, no, you can't bring a re'aya, it's דרבנן, and another one says הרחיקו דרבנן מדאורייתא. So על כל פנים you can say the pshat, one says that this is an extension of the de'oraita, one says that. Anyway, there are two ways to learn. These two ways to learn could be depended also on the two ways we said before. Why? I'll tell you. If we hold that חמץ is assur on Pesach because it's the ba'alut is an extension, like Tosafot, then you know what the Rabbanan did? They did a terrible thing. Mi-de'oraisa, chametz is yours till the end of the sixth hour. It's your ba'alut, then you continue. Came the Rabbanan and אסר'ד בהנאה a certain hour. What did they do? They took away your ba'alut from that hour. So now, how does the ba'alut get extended to later? Mi-de'oraisa, you're only over from the seven, and we said that how are you over? Because there's an extension of the ba'alut you had till now. But the Rabbanan took away your ba'alut the last hour. So the the Rabbanan made that you can't extend the ba'alut. So we must say, according to this, that the Rabbanan is not a new din. If the Rabbanan is a new din, so the Rabbanan took away your, made it אסור בהנאה, they took away your ba'alut. All they did is they extended the de'oraisa. So it's extended, and there's המשך into then, and then it goes further. So if you learn like Tosafot that the whole idea is that there's an extension of the ba'alut, you have to learn that this is an extension of the de'oraisa. But according to Rashi, it's a new din, there's no reason to say it's an extension of the de'oraisa. I mean it could, yeah, not, but it's very possible to say that this is a pure din derabbanan, right? What is the peshat? The Rabbanan said after seventh hour de'oraisa said after seventh hour it's not yours, but you're over, a din that you're over. So who cares if the Rabbanan took away your ba'alut before? Makes no difference, it's a din that you're over. So according to Rashi, we could assume that this din is a pure din derabbanan. Okay? That this din of שעות דרבנן is not a de'oraita it's a דרבננ'דיקע דאורייתא דין, but it's a pure din derabbanan, okay? Now that we established that according to Rashi בפשטות it's pure derabbanan, not an extension, we have a שאלה out of Gidal. Rav Gidal says that when you're mekadesh with a by by שעות דרבנן with חמץ, אין חוששין לקידושין. Why? So בפשטות we'll say, you know why? Because the רבנן made it אסור בהנאה, so it has no value. It has no value, you can't be mekadesh. We have a klal that there's a difference between איסורי דאורייתא איסורי דרבנן, that איסורי דאורייתא are on the cheftza and איסורי דרבנן are on the gavra. Always איסורי דאורייתא, whatever the תורה אסר'ט, the thing itself is אסור. Whatever the רבנן אסר'ט, the thing itself remains מותר. The person is obligated to listen to the חכמים. So לפי זה, there's a problem. When something is אסור בהנאה מדאורייתא, has no value. אסור בהנאה מדרבנן has a value, I just the רבנן don't allow me to sell it, they're binding my hands. They didn't אסר

this, they're holding my hands. If they're holding my hands, it's not it's שוה פרוטה. That's why Rashi over there comes up with a question. He says, Rav Gidal said that you're not חושש. What what is the reason? Because it's derabbanan? You can't tell me the reason is because it's אסור מדרבנן בהנאה. That's not a reason! Because since I hold it's pure דרבנן, מילא if I hold like Tosafot it has the גדרים of a de'oraita, because it's an extension of de'oraita, but I hold it's derabbanan, pure derabbanan. So it's on the gavra, so how come it's not חושש? That's why Rashi says it's a good question. כל המקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש. Because the רבנן takeh made an extra דין. So Rashi has to add over there that the reason you're not חושש לקידושין is for that reason. In other words, Rashi is trying to explain the Gemara over there says לגבי what? That the חמץ, בשעה that it's אסור מדרבנן, the חמץ is not yours, and therefore you can't be מבטל it. First the Gemara you can't be מבטל it מדאורייתא, then it said what about the sixth hour? So on that, the Gemara says that the חמץ is not yours. So Rashi comes and wants to explain, where do you see חמץ is not yours? The fact that it's אסור מדרבנן? So it's אסור מדרבנן! It could be אסור מדרבנן and it's still yours, because the fact it's אסור דרבנן doesn't take away the value. Why is it not yours? It's אסור בהנאה, it has no value. But since it's only אסור דרבנן, and דרבנן is on the גברא, what do you mean it has no value? So why not? That's why Rashi brings in that by קידושין we find that the רבנן made it In other words, what the Gemara is trying to say, that the רבנן added a special דין, that in addition to the normal דרבנן that you can't have הנאה, the Gemara tells us that the רבנן made it not yours. The רבנן made it הפקר. הפקר בית דין הפקר, made it they had to do a special action. Just the mere fact that they don't allow you to have הנאה wouldn't have been enough. That's why Rashi over there has to add that this is because כל המקדש and הפקר בית דין הפקר. That's only over there where the Gemara is trying to bring out that חמץ, when it's אסור מדרבנן, is not yours. Here, the Gemara doesn't bring it for that reason. Here the Gemara just brings an example. It says when the time passes, it's אסור בהנאה. The Gemara says, Peshita! So it says, we mean the זמן דרבנן. All the Gemara is trying to show an example that after a certain time it's אסור בהנאה מדרבנן. Here it's not נוגע to add the fact that the רבנן took it away from being yours. The Gemara doesn't talk about whether it's yours or not. Now, the truth is that when it comes to קידושין, why takeh is it no שאלה of קידושין? We'll have to answer because כל המקדש. But Rashi doesn't bring it here because to this Gemara it's not נוגע. See the difference? Over there the Gemara uses it to bring out that when חמץ is אסור מדרבנן בהנאה, it's not yours. Not just telling you that there is a time it's אסור, it's not yours. To make it not yours, we need a special extra דין because it's דרבנן only. Here, where the Gemara just brings it in for the mere fact it's אסור מדרבנן, it's אסור בהנאה מדרבנן, finished, and we bring an example from Rav Gidal. So Rashi doesn't have to add the words הפקר בית דין הפקר to make an extra So אין הכי נמי, one will wonder why אין חוששין לקידושין, why is it not קידושין? So we'll have to answer. But that Rashi relies already on what he wrote before. But why does Rashi omit it here? Because he wants to say here לגבי what our Gemara uses it, that point is not נוגע הפקר בית דין הפקר. But it's all based on one נקודה, that Rashi learns that it's pure דרבנן. If it's pure דרבנן, it's only on the גברא. If it's on the גברא, that's why we have to have an extra thing. If we would learn like Tosafot that it's an extension of דאורייתא, then there would be no problem to begin with. Then the fact that it's אסור בהנאה is on the חפצא, because the de'oraita is on the chafza. So this is all Rashi l'shitaso. Being that Rashi learned that חמץ באמת after the זמן is not yours, so there's no extension. If there's no extension, we can learn that it's derabbanan mamash. If it's derabbanan mamash, that's why Rashi over there has to say it, and here it's not noge'a because here the Gemara just

says asur b'hana'ah. Listen, there's an eclipse tonight. Would we say a berachah? The bad, the eclipse of the moon. Bad for the Yidden. Did it say? I don't think it said anything. It's supposed to rain anyway. Yeah, be cloudy. But it says they said that you could kind of see it till 11:00. 11:00, yeah. In the morning. In the morning? No, no, no, I think it's tonight, 5 after 10:00 or 5 after 11:00. It'll start 5 after 10:00. 10 after 10:00. I thought it was 10:00 before. We're not supposed to look at it. Look at it? It says it's a bad siman for the Yidden. No, no problem looking. Do you say a berachah on it? I don't think there's a berachah on it, we Birkat Hachamah today, isn't it? Birkat Hachamah. You say a berachah on a solar, what's it? Yeah. Solar is kind of a special berachah, it's not you read it Tuesday, huh? Oh, that was about No, we spoke about See, we learned all these dinim, but didn't say a word about an eclipse. No, didn't say about an eclipse. The only thing you had said was eclipse was bad for the Jews, so No, we didn't say it. Someone asked. A lunar eclipse? The last one was like three years ago. It comes

often. A solar eclipse is once every 28 years. What? Solar eclipse under 28 years? No, no, no, can't be. No, it's Birkat Hachamah. Birkat Hachamah is 28 years. Yeah. Solar eclipse is much more frequent than that. Lunar eclipse happens very often. Very often, but not always do you see it. Lunar eclipse is twice in Here, this is the Gemara here: shooting star, and the hurricanes, and thunder, lightning, and all this all these berachot. But doesn't Does it say is there a berachah? Doesn't mention berachah on it. No berachah on eclipse. It doesn't say eclipse, no. I didn't understand. In another place for someone, it says לא יאכל that you're not allowed to eat chametz. That somewhere else, that means you're not allowed to have no hana'ah from it, or anything else. Then this whole discussion says that you can either sell it to a you can give it as a gift to a to a someone who lives in your community, believes in one God, or you can nevelah that comes No, that's another thing. Depends on how you look at the pasuk by nevelah. The pasuk is by nevelah, not here. By לא יאכל? לא יאכל by chametz, but when it says to give it to a גר תושב, that's by nevelah. To give it to a גר תושב or to sell it to a goy is by גר תושב. It's by nevelah. It's only by nevelah, only. 2003 or 81? Yeah, look at 2003 or 81. We were just learning that today, that's why. Yeah, I did not understand it clearly, everybody, because they were bringing in We were just learning that today, because I didn't realize that all these The pasuk by neveilah, obvious, because the juxtaposition. That the Gemara brings it, I understand that. You know the pasuk

about the about the birds know their time? Even the birds know their time? Where is that in?