What we hear here, Rav Yehuda saying in Rav: הבודק צריך שיבטל. That when you do בדיקה, and מדאורייתא, as we've been learning the whole time, you can check the house, and you find the חמץ, and whatever you find you burn, you're not עובר anymore on בל יראה ובל ימצא. You did your job. Nevertheless, the חכמים said that even though you were בודק, you, in addition to that, have to be מבטל. You have to do ביטול also. מדאורייתא you don't. מדאורייתא it's either one, or בדיקה or ביטול. מדאורייתא בביטול בעלמא סגי. If you do ביטול, you're יוצא. You could leave it around. Or you do בדיקה, and then you don't have to do ביטול. But the רבנן said you have to do בדיקה, and in addition to that, you have to do ביטול. And the Gemara says מאי טעמא, why? Leave it around, you're not עובר on seeing חמץ? No, no, if you're מבטל, you're not עובר. That's the... And the Gemara wants to know why. And the Gemara first has a סברא of שיורי פירורין. Then the Gemara says אמר רבא, רבא explained why: גזירה שמא ימצא גלוסקא יפה ודעתיה עילויה. It's a גזירה, the רבנן were afraid that you might find a גלוסקא יפה in the middle of Pesach, even though you did בדיקה, you know, you're only human being, you never know what could happen, you might find a nice piece of חמץ, ודעתיה עילויה, and you'll have your mind on it, and you will be עובר on בל יראה ובל ימצא if you find the חמץ. When you find it, you will be עובר. If Rashi says ודעתיה, the Gemara says ודעתיה עילויה. ודעתיה עילויה means חס עליו מלשרפו. You might, you know, hesitate from burning it. So if you find it and you burn it right away, so then you're not עובר. But otherwise, if you're ודעתיה עילויה, like Rashi says חס עליו מלשרפו, you will חס means you will, you know, what's a better word for חס? You... Yeah, you have pity really, but it doesn't mean pity. It means you will hesitate, that's basically what it means. You will hold yourself back from burning it, so that moment, Rashi says, even though it's a moment, a רגע, ומשהה אותו רגע אחד, you would for one רגע you hold it without going to burn it, ונמצא עובר על בל יראה, you're עובר בל יראה. So therefore, חכמים said right in the beginning, before Pesach yet, when you do the bedikah, do the bitul. So, no matter what, even if you will find it and you won't at for a moment destroy it, you will not be עובר מדאורייתא because you were mevatel that chametz. Tosafot argues on Rashi, and Tosafot says that דעתיה עילויה means a different has a different meaning. It's not noge'a all the details, it's a lot of details here, but it's not noge'a. The ikar is according to Tosafot that the Gemara does not mean that you will find it and you'll hesitate. The Gemara just stam says we're afraid in the middle of Pesach you'll find chametz. You'll find a piece of chametz, and you'll be עובר. Finding chametz, you now you have chametz, you'll be עובר. So therefore, the חכמים said you have to be mevatel. How come he means when it comes to bedikah? No, no, that's farkert, that's why bitul's not going to help bedikah. Won't you be עובר on בל ימצא? בל יראה ובל ימצא. So according to Rashi, you'll only be over, Rashi says clearly, what are we afraid? You'll find it, you'll hold it for a moment, you'll hesitate from burning it, and that moment that you won't be מתעסק, you won't be involved in burning it, you'll be over. Tosafos learn a different peshat in the words ודעתיה עילויה. And according to Tosafos, the Gemara doesn't mention that idea that you'll hesitate. So according to Tosafos, the way some מפרשים learn, others learn different, but the way some מפרשים learn, the peshat is that the Gemara says we're afraid you might find chametz, and you'll be over. So it seems as if there is a machloket between Rashi and Tosafos in this פרט that if you will find chametz on Pesach, whether you'll be over right away, even if you're starting to burn it.

According to Rashi, if you the second you find it you'll go to burn it, you won't stop for a moment, you won't be over. We're only afraid you might, yes, stop. But according to Tosafos, that's not the point. The whole what we're afraid of is the fact that you'll find chametz, even if you will be מתעסק to burn it, you will be over. And that's why you want to make sure that you're not over, that's why we say bitul. And the question is: what is the basis of the argument? Now, one of the ways to learn, but that's not going to be the המשך הענין that I'm going to explain, but there is one way to learn, we know that the Alter Rebbe says, we learned that in what's that in Shulchan Aruch the other time, that מדאורייתא, when the איסור חמץ starts from the seventh hour, you are בעצם able to start burning at that time. אי, you start burning at the beginning of the seventh hour when it's asur already, and it takes you half hour to get it burned, half hour you have chametz! So the Alter Rebbe says: no problem! Since you're מתעסק, you're involved in burning it, you're not over. So that's what Rashi learns. And therefore, if you're going to find chametz on Pesach, which you didn't find by the בדיקה, and you will be מתעסק in burning it, there's not a problem. The whole problem is you might not מתעסק be in burning it. But Tosafot will learn: no. When is this דין said that if you're involved in burning you're not עובר? It's only in the beginning of the זמן. Because that's the wait, that's the פשט. The Torah says like this: now it's אסור, so now you got to get involved. So as long as from the beginning of the זמן, as much as it takes you to burn it, You're not עובר. But in middle of Pesach, then the fact that you're מתעסק won't do any good, and therefore the moment you find it you're עובר. And that's why Tosafot learns like that. But that's one way to learn. What I'm going to try to bring out is a different way to learn the מחלוקת רש״י and Tosafot. This is one ענין here. Then there's another ענין here. The Gemara continues and says like this: If you're afraid that you might find a piece of חמץ on Pesach, that's why you have to מבטל it before. So the

Gemara asks: וכי משכחת לה לבטליה? You're afraid you'll find? The moment he'll find, he'll be מבטל. In other words, let's make a דין that every person should know that if you ever find חמץ on Pesach, be מבטל. Why make a תקנה that every single person, whenever you're בודק, you have to be מבטל in case one out of 50 will find? Let the guy who will find it, when he'll find it, let him be מבטל. Why does that sound familiar? Huh? The Gemara answers: Can't do that, because he might find it on Pesach after the איסור. דלאו ברשותיה קיימא. After the איסור, it's not yours. Because, as, ולא מצי לבטולי. Why is it not yours? As we've been learning always: אמר רב אלעזר שני דברים אינן ברשותו של אדם, there are two things which don't belong to the person, and the Torah says that it's like it's yours, that's why you're עובר, but בעצם it's not yours, so you can't be מבטל, and that's why you can't do this. Well, that קשיא doesn't make sense according to Rashi. Huh? Well, that kashya doesn't make sense according to Rashi. Why? Rashi says that That's that's Tosafos's kashya. Wait for a second. That's that's Tosafos's kashya on Rashi. Tosafos's kashya on Rashi is if we're afraid that he might hold back from burning, so he'll hold back from being mevatel also. That's what Tosafos asks. Actually, Tosafos even misquotes Rashi to be open with it. Tosafos says that Rashi said he won't be מבטל, חס עליה לבטליה. Rashi didn't say that. The Maharsha says that Tosafos learned when Rashi says he might not be mevatel, or bepashtut he won't be he might not even burn it, he won't be mevatel it either. So Tosafos says the Gemara's kashya doesn't make sense. That's Tosafos's kashya. What do you mean when he'll find let him be mevatel? We're talking we're afraid the guy's not going to be mevatel. What are you talking? But the Yeshua answers that no, that Rashi is mechalek. Doesn't mean we're afraid he might want to hold it. He won't want to burn it. He won't want to burn it, let's say, he knows he can't have it. He'll want to give it to the dogs, he'll give it to a goy. So the Gemara asks so tell him to be mevatel it. So anyway, these are details I didn't even want to go into. You mentioned it so I'm giving that that that it's because it's mevu'ar the inyan. But the bottom line, we just see that there's a machloket that Rashi learns that if you find chametz on Pesach and you're involved in burning it right away and not one second you hesitated you're not be over. And according to Tosafos, you will be. So we're trying to see why. So first I gave one plausible biur, but there is another biur to say. Now let's go to the הבא next inyan. The Gemara asks the שאלה let him be mevatel when he finds it. And the Gemara said he might find it after the זמן. So the Gemara says okay, but why do you have to be mevatel it the night before? Let's be mevatel it four hours of the day, five hours of the day. So the Gemara says, he'll forget. The night before, you're involved in bedikah, so when you're involved in bedikah, you'll be mevatel. The middle of the day tell him 10:00 in the morning be mevatel, he'll forget. So the Gemara says, you know what? Let's be מבטל בשש when the sixth, the beginning of the sixth hour, when you're burning your chametz. Why do it when you're the day you're burning? So the Gemara says, no, the sixth hour is already an איסור דרבנן. When you start burning it על פי דין, you're burning מדאורייתא, you could start burning at the seventh, but the רבנן said that's it's אסור בהנאה an hour before, so you start burning at the sixth. So the Gemara says, well at least when you're starting to burn, then be mevatel. So the Gemara says, since it's אסור מדרבנן, it's like מדאורייתא. דלאו ברשותיה קיימא, it's not in his רשות, ולא מצי לבטולי, you can't be mevatel. And the Gemara brings a re'iyah from Rav Gidel. דאמר רב גידל, the famous din of Rav Gidel said: המקדש משש שעות ולמעלה, אפילו בחטי קורדניתא, אין חוששין לקידושין. If a person would take חטי קורדניתא, חטי קורדניתא Rashi says is wheat that's got soaked with water, and became very hard, and you take this חטין and it has it's worth a perutah, and you will mekadesh an אשה משש שעות ולמעלה, the way Rashi learns it means the sixth hour. The sixth hour, it's only אסור מדרבנן. Chametz is only אסור מדרבנן בהנאה, and you will מקדש an אשה. So אין חוששין לקידושין, the קידושין is not קידושין. אה, it's only אסור מדרבנן, מדאורייתא it's still good. Because so so bepashtut in Gemara, because for the That's why the Gemara wants to bring out, that that's איסור דרבנן, and this איסור דרבנן already is the same like מדאורייתא. Because it's not yours or because it's not worth anything? Because it's not worth anything. It's אסור בהנאה We'll see in a second. Not so פשוט, this is what we're going to get into. That's the Gemara's re'aya. Now, in this inyan, there's a machloket Rashi and Tosafot. Rashi learns, the way it says here, that the case is that you give her קידושין the sixth hour of the day. Not after the six, from the beginning of it. The beginning of the sixth hour is only אסור מדרבנן. And that's the case here. Tosafot says that the לשון of the Gemara, if you give קידושין משש שעות ולמעלה means סוף שש, the end of the six, which is דאורייתא. So what is the Gemara using this, bringing in here? דהיאך דקורדנייתא, the type of חמץ is only חמץ דרבנן. It's this חמץ which is only אסור מדרבנן, and the Gemara wants to bring a re'aya here that מדרבנן it's אסור. So it comes out like this: in פשוט פשט, there are others who learned different, but the way it seems from here that according to Tosafot, this is a case where the חמץ is דרבנן, but you're doing it at the זמן דאורייתא, the שעות are דאורייתא. According to Rashi, it's a case where both are דרבנן, and even then the kiddushin is no kiddushin. That's one thing, but that's not באמת נוגע, so I'm just saying it as a pshat. But then, in Rashi גופא, Rashi asks a kasha: ואף על גב דאתי איסור הנאה דחמץ דרבנן דשש ומפקיע קידושי תורה? How could we say this is only חמץ which is אסור מדרבנן, which means מדאורייתא it's not אסור, so מדאורייתא, when this man gave her the kiddushin, the kiddushin should be good! So she should be an eshet ish. Came the Rabbanan and said, \"No, she's not an eshet ish.\" How could they do such a thing? The Rabbanan could be could be makil? Machmir, not makil! The Rabbanan cannot take a woman that מדאורייתא she is married, that she's an eshet ish, and if she goes and marries somebody else, he'll get killed for it, and the Rabbanan says she's not married. So Rashi says, כהא דתרצינן בכמה דוכתי, that this is already answered in many places in the Gemara: כל המקדש, אדעתא דרבנן מקדש. Anybody who gives kiddushin, gives kiddushin on the daat of the Rabbanan. As if the guy says, when the guy says כדת משה וישראל, he means that \"I'm giving on condition that the Rabbanan should agree.\" And הפקר בית דין הפקר, and the בית דין said it's הפקר, הם אפקיעו מיניה, they said the money is not his, therefore the kiddushin is not kiddushin. Or the money is not worth anything, not his, not worth anything, is what Rashi says. Now, some מפרשים ask a kasha on Rashi: Why does Rashi have to come on to this whole idea that the Rabbanan took away the kiddushin because you're מקדש אדעתא דרבנן? And some want to say that takeh Tosafos doesn't learn like that. לכאורה, it could be very pashut. This is chametz that is אסור בהנאה. It's אסור בהנאה מדרבנן, but the bottom line is, you can't get a penny for it. It's not worth a penny. She can't sell it, he can't sell it, it's nothing. So it's אסור בהנאה, so she's not מקודשת! Why do you have to come on to a reason because of אפקיעו רבנן לקידושין מיניה? What's what's milchatchilah the kashya of Rashi? How could you say that מדאורייתא she's married, comes the רבנן and says she's not either? What's the difference if the stock market fell, and this thing that you gave her used to be worth $10, now it's worth less than a perutah? She's not מקודשת. Well, that's certainly not a halachah, it's a fact. So the רבנן's thing knocked down the value. So it has no value, so it's not a שוה פרוטה. And some want to say takeh that Tosafos takeh learns that. Tosafos doesn't mention it, and that's not because Some learn that this has nothing to do with אפקיעו רבנן לקידושין, the רבנן took away the קידושין, סתם. The Gemara tells us, since it's a איסור חמץ דרבנן, אסור בהנאה, it's אסור בהנאה, you can't. But so here also we want to know the two sides. Why would one say that לכאורה it's אסור בהנאה, so it's not? On the other hand, Rashi doesn't learn like that. Rashi says the איסור הנאה itself would not be enough. You have to come on to the idea that you're מקדש אדעתא דרבנן and the רבנן took away the קידושין. What are the two sides? So, here also there is one way to learn, and then I'm going to try to just say something which will be a המשך in all the inyanim. One way to learn is that there is בכלל a she'eilah. This is this is the nekudah of the machloket: If something is אסור בהנאה מדרבנן, is that also considered אסור בהנאה מדאורייתא? In simple words, does the Torah take in consideration what the רבנן say? Do we look as as far as the Torah is concerned, there is no דין דרבנן, so it's nothing? Or we say it takes in consideration what the Rabbanan did? And the Rabbanan, cuz just like it takes in consideration the גשמיותדיקע fact, it should take the Rabbanan's din. Now, we

have a ra'ayah from the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, the de'oraisa does not take in consideration the derabbanan. And that's a din in Shulchan Aruch that I think I mentioned last week or two weeks ago. It's only according The Alter Rebbe says it in the shittah of Tosafos, but that's not the point of Tosafos, that's why it has nothing to do with Tosafos, it just happens to be in that shittah. Remember at that time we explained, if you find chametz, let's pick takeh, you find chametz on Pesach, on Yom Tov. On Yom, not on Shabbos, on Yom Tov Pesach. And it's chametz that you were not mevatel. That's whatever, or it became chametz on Pesach. So Tosafos learns that you can burn it on Yom Tov. And the Alter Rebbe goes into all the details. What did the Alter Rebbe say? Remember, the Alter Rebbe said like this: You can't pick it up and throw it into the ocean, like normally you could be מבער חמץ, because it's muktzah. Okay, so you can't throw muktzah in. Then he says, \"What about burning it without touching, without moving? Pick a match and throw it at it.\" So he says, \"No, there's a issur of שריפה, you can't burn it.\" So he says, \"What do you mean you can't burn? Yom Tov you're allowed to make a fire.\" The only thing he says, you're allowed to make a fire on Yom Tov for if it's צורך אוכל נפש, for food, or צורך היום. This is not called צורך היום. It's not called it's needs for the day. What do you mean not called needs? Why not? Because mide'oraisa, you could throw it in the ocean. You need it for some purpose of for today's day. So here, you need it to burn the chametz. Yeah, for other reasons, yeah, for other needs. So here there is definitely a need. What's the need? To burn the chametz. So the Alter Rebbe says, no, it's not called a need. Why is it not called a need? Because you could throw it away, not to burn. What, you can throw it? You can't throw it away because the Rabbanan said you can't! So, he said, no, the de'oraita doesn't care about the Rabbanan, but as far as I'm concerned, you could. But you can't! No. So what comes out from here? Like what we see that as far as the de'oraita, the derabbanan doesn't count. In other words, the Rabbanan said, is said. So far, the Rabbanan stuck to their din. They say you can't do it because of muktzeh, so you can't throw it out. The de'oraita says you can't burn it, so what is the bottom line? Don't do anything with it. Finished. But on that din, it seems we see this concept that de'oraita does not consider derabbanan. On the other hand, we find other cases where we do. There is a כלל, קנין דרבנן מהני לדאורייתא. If a person would be קונה money with a kinyan that the Rabbanan made, there are kinyanim that the de'oraita you're not קונה, and the Rabbanan made a kinyan, and that's how it's mine. Then I take this money that I was קונה, and I go and mekadesh an אשה. Is she מקודשת מדאורייתא, or not? You could say, well, the whole reason the money is mine is derabbanan, de'oraita there is no kinyan, so it's not really mine, so how could I be mekadesh her? That's not true. After I got the money, the din is the money is mine. Ai it's miderabbanan, but it's a fact, it's mine. So now I could go and be mekadesh an אשה, and she's מקודשת מדאורייתא. So we see that the Rabbanan does take consideration de'oraita. So normally we learn that the difference is, and the רבי says this in one place, in a one vort, and this is the klal. The klal is like this: He doesn't say it as a klal, but he asks a kashya, famous kashya. We know that there is no such thing as a date for Shavuos. אלא מאי? The 50th of sefirah. Nowadays, Sefirah is derabbanan, so how could you have שבועות מדאורייתא? So Shavuos should be also miderabbanan, because the whole thing is because of Shavuos, because of Sefirah, and there is no ספירה מדאורייתא. So one place the Rebbe answers, one teirutz, כ״ג. Here in חלק ח׳, in a הערה, the Rebbe answers like this: Because the יום טוב שבועות comes לאחר גמר הדרבנן. It comes after the derabbanan is finished. Which comes out like this: When the rabbanan make a din, and it's done, it's a fact. It's done. When de'oraisa, and then comes a דין דאורייתא, so then de'oraisa, what do you mean, if the rabbanan is a fact, it's there, so de'oraisa it could be מדאורייתא דהשתא. If the de'oraisa and the derabbanan come together, then, as far as the de'oraisa is concerned, now there is no derabbanan, because the דין דרבנן doesn't exist. It's על דרך, I gave an example of קנין דרבנן, let's use that keep that example. After you make the kinyan, it's now it's yours, it's finished. So now, the de'oraisa. It's על דרך another

case, which has nothing to do with de'oraisa and derabbanan, but gives an example: סוקלין על החזקות. What? סוקלין על החזקות. You give סקילה, you kill a person based on a chazakah. What does that mean? You can't kill a person unless there are two witnesses to the aveirah, there's no question about it. What happens if you have a woman who is בחזקת אשת איש, she has a chazakah of being a married woman. You don't have עדים. But according to the halachah, she has a חזקת אשת איש, and we establish her as an אשת איש. Then this woman goes and she is מזנה. Two edim show she is mezaneh, will she get killed? Yes. How can you kill her? Two edim only saw her mezaneh, but how do you know she's an אשת איש? On the chazakah, so you're killing her on the chazakah. So the answer is very simple: There're two stages. There is a דין חזקה, and that's established, it's finished. Now that she's an אשת איש, two people saw her mezaneh, you kill her. Same thing here, when the derabbanan is over. Actually, in that הערה, see that הערה in Likutei Sichot חלק ח׳ was not written for the sichah to the Likutei Sichot. When the Rebbe said the sichah, I remember we asked about the she'elot, and the Rebbe answered a big answer, I have the כתב יד, a whole answer, and this was part of that, in that answer the Rebbe wrote this. Later, when it was made into a sichah in Likutei Sichot, they took what the Rebbe wrote, and for some reason, by mistake, there was a line that fell out there, it's not in the sefer. It's not in Likutei Sichot, but the Rebbe originally had written it. What did he write? That this inyan that after the derabbanan is finished de'oraita is, he says, על דרך קנין דרבנן מהני לדאורייתא. Actually, I think he wrote על דרך בלייב ממש, it's not mamash the same thing, but it's על דרך קנין דרבנן מהני לדאורייתא. So the so the same thing here, where were we holding? The kinyan that you make with the rabbanan helps that the de'oraita considers it. But only if it ends first. Well, only if it ends first, but by קנין דרבנן also it's only if it ends first it ends first. In other words, it's there already.

There are other examples, I didn't want because this is a side inyan, but I didn't want, but there are examples to this, other examples also. No, no. Listen, yeah, but as far as de'oraita, but there is no mitzvah like that, no chiyuv. No. No, the chiyuv to listen to the rabbanan, but the fact what the rabbanan said, it was similar, it's not exactly this, because the Torah tells you to go to the doctor, so whatever the doctor says becomes a mitzvah in the Torah? Yeah, that's not a negative. The Rebbe never said it's It's not. No, the Rebbe said that that it's a ציווי התורה. ציווי התורה, but the prat is not. It's a כללות'דיק ציווי. That prat that you're doing is not. So you can't say the Torah wants you to take a Tylenol today. Doctor told you to take Tylenol, say the Torah wants you to take The Torah wants you to listen to the doctor. Now the doctor told you to take Tylenol, so it's not a The rabbanan can't override the de'oraita. That's not called overriding. That's called, I'm saying farkert, when the rabbanan established a din, it became a fact as if it is takeh a fact. If anything is noge'a to the de'oraita based on and it'll have a change if the rabbanan would say did something before, when the de'oraita made their din, there was no derabbanan, so that doesn't affect, that doesn't mean anything. Or you say no, l'fo'al, the rabbanan made it, so now, like the example I gave before, would mid'oraita you be allowed to burn the chametz on on Yom Tov? Well, originally not because you could throw it away, but now that the rabbanan said no, so you can't throw it away, so de'oraita so mid'oraita now you should be able to burn it. So we

say no. So obviously over there, we consider it they came in the same time, for some reason, which again I don't want to But I want to give other examples, just it's an interesting inyan, that's why I'm I'm dwelling on it. There is Whatever the the rabbis establish, the Torah is willing to say Now now it's a fact. Yeah. And if it's a fact, now according that was like recognizing it, they take it into consideration, they recognize it, that's it, exactly. Except for the case of now except that lishmah So the rabbanan come said only till chatzot, but mid'oraita you're allowed to say it till the morning. But a lot of times the rabbanan make gezeirot that they tell you to stop. So yeah, that's that's another Yeah, but I'm talking about the de'oraita recognizing the derabbanan, not the rabbanan the de'oraita. You're talking about the rabbanan made a positive idea. The rabbanan said a din and that will affect the de'oraita, that because of that, it'll change in the de'oraita. That was as far as the de'oraita is concerned, is this is the derabbanan a fact? Is as far as the de'oraita is concerned, is the derabbanan a fact? I'll give you an example. There's a din that if you cause somebody to do an aveirah, you're over on a lav d'oraisa of לפני עור לא תתן מכשול. It says you're not allowed to put a stumbling stone in front of a person, and that's a lav. What happens if you cause someone to do an issur derabbanan? It's an עצה רעה. Huh? An עצה רעה over here. What about according to this? One second. עצה רעה. Tosefos says that you would be עובר דאורייתא. A machloket. עצה רעה. And the Rebbe is מסביר, it's talui in this pshat. It's talui if you the pasuk means כפשוטו also that if you put a stumbling block in front of, or not. And he brings this עצה רעה, it's a whole thing is this and he's מסביר it's talui if it's a פרט in every mitzvah or not. I don't want to go Okay, it's a Okay, another example where the Rebbe is מדייק a diyuk, an interesting diyuk. It

says in pasuk that you're not allowed to not lend someone money before shemittah because shemittah is coming. The pasuk says, השמר לך פן יהיה דבר עם לבבך בליעל, you'll say, look, shemittah is coming. And then the Gemara says that Hillel made a פרוזבול. Why did Hillel make a פרוזבול? Because he saw that people are over on this aveirah that it says, עוברים על מה שכתוב בתורה, they're over on what the Torah says. Then the Gemara is מסביר according to one pshat that how does how could Hillel make a pruzbul? Mid'oraita you can't claim the money in pruzbul. Also the Gemara answers, it's only shemitah derabbanan. In time of Hillel, shemitah was only miderabbanan, like nowadays. Shemitah derabbanan, Hillel could make a takanah of a pruzbul. Sure, in בית שני, חלק of the time was de'oraita. Why did it change? Because not all the Yidden lived in Eretz Yisrael. They're all talui when there's no more yovel, no more yovel is no more shemitah. There's a big machloket. Huh? Yeah, according to this peshat, the Gemara pruzbul. But the question is, according to this peshat, what is the peshat the Gemara said that Hillel saw that they were over on what it says in the Torah? What does it say in the Torah? See, if a person doesn't lend money stam azoi, he's not over on that pasuk. Do it because He do it because of shemitah. Now, if gantz shemitah is derabbanan, so what peshat you're over on the Torah? The answer is who cares whether it's derabbanan, but lefo'al you are not lending because of shemitah. So says the Torah, and the Rebbe makes this diyuk. In fact, is it not in a short he'arah someplace? He writes מה שכתוב בתורה. So normally someone would say Torah it's a it's just an expression. You're over on a issur derabbanan. But it says לשון תורה, that you're עובר מדאורייתא for not wanting to lend money because of שמטה דרבנן. Because l'poal there's a שמטה, it's a fact. It's a דרבנן שמטה, but the Torah recognizes that fact. Anyway, so l'poal, according to this, we could go to here also.

What is the pshat when give קידושין with something which is אסור בהנאה מדרבנן? Is it considered the de'oraita takes it into consideration? Does the de'oraita consider it that it's טאקע אסור בהנאה? And if it is, then you don't have to come onto אפקעינהו רבנן לקידושין מיניה, that the derabbanan took it away. Why? Because it's אסור בהנאה. So even de'oraita it's not קידושין, so you don't have a kashya, how did they take away the derabbanan take away קידושין מדאורייתא? Pashut, it's אסור בהנאה. And if it's אסור בהנאה, so it's not אסור בהנאה that you'll be מקדש. But if you learn it's not like that, if you learn that Torah will never take into consideration the derabbanan or we can find some way to explain that this is considered they come בבת אחת, they come together, then the de'oraita doesn't recognize the derabbanan. So it's not אסור בהנאה as far as the de'oraita is concerned. It's not, it's not אסור בהנאה, וממילא the question of Rashi is a good question. But this is one way to go about it. But I want to go about it a different way through, you know, it's a, you know, not answering through pilpul. Then there's another thing in the sugya. It's known

one of the opinions, pshat in Rambam, there's an opinion in the Rambam, in other words there's a machloket what the Rambam wrote, there are two גירסאות in Rambam, there's called the גירסא ישנה and the גירסא חדשה, the old גירסא and the new גירסא, and according to the old girsa, the Rambam holds that bitul does not help for חמץ ידוע. Bitul only helps for chametz that you don't know about. A chametz that might be someplace hidden, you don't know, it happened to stick, but if you know you have chametz, mide'oraita bitul doesn't help. The other girsa says no, that bitul helps for all of them. Normally we don't learn it, we learn that mide'oraita bitul helps, but there's a shita in Rambam. On that shita we could make a kashya. Our Gemara says here, remember we quoted in the Gemara, first the Gemara says why do you have to do bitul if you did bedikah? You might find a piece of... So then the Gemara, what's the problem? When you'll find it, you'll be mevatel. What does that mean you'll find it? According to the Rambam, if you find it, you see it, you can't be mevatel. And since the Gemara asks you'll find and mevatel, is a re'ayah that you could be מבטל חמץ ידוע. And also the re'ayah, another kashya, the Gemara later on asks a she'eilah, you just told the Gemara says that after the זמן האיסור, you can't be mevatel, so what's the Gemara say, you might find it, the זמן האיסור you can't be mevatel. I'll show you that you could be mevatel. And the Gemara quotes a din, it says in a Beraita, היה יושב בבית המדרש, you should be sitting in the בית המדרש ונזכר שיש חמץ בתוך ביתו, and you remembered you have חמץ home, מבטלו בלבו, you're מבטל it. And the ברייתא says, אחד שבת ואחד יום טוב, whether it's Shabbos or Yom Tov. So the Gemara says, בשלמא שבת משכחת לה, דחשיב יום ארבעה עשר שחל להיות בשבת, שבת could be Erev Pesach before the zman. So, you remind yourself that you have chametz at home, so then you're mevatel. יום טוב, מטא ליה אסורא הוא, it's after the issur. How does how could it say he's mevatel, it's after the issur? So, the Gemara, that's what changes and says no, we're talking about a case where it wasn't chametz yet. You reminded yourself that you had a dough that might become chametz later, so you're mevatel it before it becomes chametz. But before that, the Gemara thought this is talking about real chametz, and nevertheless the Gemara said he could be mevatel. The whole problem the Gemara had with the peshat is for a different reason. The Gemara's problem was that it's after the issur, that's what the Gemara didn't want, it had to change the peshat. But can you say that it's chametz that you didn't know that you had when Pesach started? No. Yeah, but now you know. Now once you know, it's okay, you could be mevatel. No, no. According to the Rambam who holds that chametz that you know about you can't be mevatel. So, how did the Gemara feel that he could be mevatel? That's a kashya on the Rambam. So, I just

want to say bekitzur, behemshech to what I said last week, that there's a מחלוקת Rashi and Tosafot we could learn what is the geder of chametz, issur of chametz. Is it לך or matzui? Is the ikar issur the לך, that it's yours, and that's what makes the issur on you, but if it would not be matzui, matzui means found by you, if it wouldn't be found, then you would be פטור, but the real the סיבת האיסור, the cause of the איסור is the לך? That's how we said Tosafot learns. And Rashi learns that the main thing is the מצוי. If it's found by you, that's why it's אסור. Now, if it's not לך, then it's that it takes away the איסור. And the difference is, according to Rashi it doesn't have to be לך. It just If it's It cannot be not לך, because if it's not לך you won't be עובר. So in order to be עובר, should not it's not so it's not that it's not לך, but it doesn't we don't need a לך. According to Tosafot, we need a לך. On the other hand, the מצוי, according to Rashi you're עובר because of מצוי. According to Tosafot, it doesn't have to be מצוי. As long as you can't don't say it's not מצוי, then already you're עובר. The only thing it'll be if it's not מצוי, it'll ruin it it'll ruin the איסור, but if it's not as long as it's not that, no problem. And we explained the Gemara before and that, and there are more פרטים there in that Gemara. But according to this, we can come up with another נקודה. This could explain, you can go back to Rashi, go on Rashi's side. This could explain why לאחר זמן איסורו, after this time of the איסור, you can't be מבטל חמץ. The Gemara says you can't be מבטל after the זמן איסור, and the Gemara gives the reason because the חמץ is not yours. So, we have the שאלה that they ask, ממילא according to Tosafot, the whole reason of ביטול is hefker, so you can only make hefker something that's yours. If it's not yours, how can you make it hefker? According to Rashi, bitul is מטעם תשביתו, what's bitul? That you're משבית בלב, you decide it's not, so even if it's not yours, why can't it work? This is chametz, I see chametz there, and מבטל it. So you could say, according to Rashi, the pshat is like this. Explained last week that the difference of לך and מצוי is that the לך is now, before Pesach. No, to go back a little bit. When we said according to Abaye that before Pesach you don't have to be מבטל, מבעיר חמץ, even if you know you're coming back. A person knows he comes back doesn't have to be מבטל. Only within 30 days because of Rabbanan, but otherwise you don't have to. So, we said why? Because according to Rashi, at least. According to Rashi, the ikar is the מצוי, the ikar is it's found. What's today, we don't have yet, not only we don't have the time when the issur is, we don't even have the the מציאות, the cheftza, the object of the issur. Now tell you, and I explained last week, let put in other words: when something is mine, if it's mine today, the same way it's mine today, it's going to be mine on Pesach. So I already today have what makes up the issur, only thing is it's not Pesach yet. So I have a chiyuv to do it. מה שאין כן מצוי, what's found today is not found then. Today it's found today, tomorrow it's found. That's something that day by day, minute by minute it's found. So it comes out that the issur of the chametz on Pesach, which is מצוי, is not there yet. Not only the time didn't come, what makes the מציאות of the issur is not around yet. So that's why Abaye says so I have no chiyuv to do it. Same thing here, when can you be מבטל חמץ? Bitul is a shvache type of hefker. It's not so as an hefker. You say real hefker is hefker. Bitul, like the Ran says, it's a shvache hefker. So as long as you don't have the cheftza of the issur, you don't have the metziut of the issur, not only you don't have the time of the issur, you don't have the metziut of the issur, you still can be mevatel. When the זמן comes, now already that the איסור is there completely, now you can't be mevatel. So the reason you could say according to this why לאחר זמן איסורו you can't be mevatel is because now there is too much of the chametz for you to be mevatel. You can only be mevatel when the cheftza is not there. I'll give you an example. Like the Gemara says later in the teirutz, which I mentioned I didn't dwell on it, that the case is on Pesach if you know you have dough that's not chametz yet, before it became chametz you could be mevatel, even though it's after the זמן איסור, because it's not asur yet. But it's why? It's not chametz yet. It's actually what they do when they bake matzah on Erev Pesach after chatzot, so they keep on screaming, because what happened when you make dough and it falls, and no one pick picks it up, it becomes chametz. So they keep on screaming: Di pirurin zoln zayn batel, di pirurin zoln zayn batel, that the pieces that fall should be batel. Ai it's after the זמן איסור, how could you be mevatel it? You're mevatel it before it became chametz, and that you could. So I want to say just like in the physical object you could be mevatel it even after the זמן איסור as long as it didn't become chametz, why? Because you don't have the cheftza, so I want to say that before the זמן איסור, even if you do have the chametz, you're still missing the cheftza. Why? Because what is the cheftza of chametz, the issur it makes up, like I explained last week, the zman of Pesach, because the ikar is מצוי, is part of the cheftza. Before Pesach there is no מצוי of Pesach, and therefore you could be mevatel it. And that's the difference between before the זמן איסור and after the זמן איסור. Now, the

Rambam who holds that you can't be מבטל חמץ ידוע, it could be based on the same thing. Since bitul is a shvache thing, so he says a step further: when could you be mevatel it? Not only when you don't have the real מצוי, because it's not Pesach yet. If you have a little bit of the מצוי, already you can't be mevatel it. If you know where it is, that's מצוי. What's the difference between knowing and not knowing? מה החילוק in לך, it's yours the same. The difference is in מצוי. If you know where it is, it's found. It's not you don't if you don't know it's around, it's not. מצוי really means available. It's not available to you. So just like we're saying לאחר זמן איסורו you can't be mevatel it. Why? Because you still don't have the full מציאות חפצא of the chametz, so the Rambam goes a step ahead, further and says, even before Pesach you al kol panim you have a chelek. It's a מצוי, not this complete מצוי, but it's there. The only time you can be mevatel it if it's not מצוי at all, which means you don't even know about it. What do we gain with this? We gain with this like this: that this shita of the Rambam that you can't be מבטל חמץ ידוע is connected to the fact that you can't be מבטל חמץ after the זמן איסור. Now, if for some reason we would hold that you could be מבטל חמץ after the זמן איסור, then according to the Rambam you would be able to be מבטל חמץ ידוע. Are you with me or what? This Gemara here, when the Gemara asks, let's be mevatel it when you find it, this is all before the Gemara knew that you can't be mevatel after זמן איסור. That's exact, the Gemara asks a kashya, why can't he be mevatel it when you found it? And the Gemara answers, because after זמן איסור you can't be mevatel. So what did the Gemara think in the kashya? That you could be mevatel after זמן איסור, obviously, that's the chiddush of this Gemara. At this point when you could be mevatel after זמן איסור, you automatically for sure could be מבטל חמץ ידוע, according to the Rambam. The Rambam is only saying it lehalacha. Okay. The Gemara here, what was the kashya on the Rambam? The Rambam says you cannot be מבטל חמץ ידוע. The kashya is, the Gemara here asks, why do you have to be mevatel before when you do the bedikah? When you will find it, you'll be mevatel then. So the Gemara says, no, when you find it you can't be mevatel then, cuz it's on Pesach, you can't be mevatel on Pesach. What did the Gemara think in the kashya? That you could be mevatel after זמן איסור. If you could be mevatel after זמן איסור, right? Obviously, for some reason, the Gemara at this

point feels that you don't care, the fact that there's the complete cheftza of the chametz is here, you still could be mevatel it. So if that's so, then you should be able to מבטל חמץ ידוע. What does he say is the shita of the Rambam that you can't be מבטל חמץ ידוע, why not? He says, just like you can't be mevatel after זמן איסור, because there you have the complete cheftza of chametz, I say even if you have half of the cheftza of chametz, it's a שטיקל מצה, you also can't. But imagine if you could be mevatel after זמן איסור, could you be מבטל חמץ ידוע? Vadai vadai. So here when the Gemara at this point still thinks that you could be mevatel after this זמן איסור, so this Gemara feels that you could be מבטל חמץ ידוע also. When the Rambam says you can't, cuz the Rambam is talking lehalacha. Lehalacha, this is not true. Lehalacha you can't be mevatel after זמן איסור, so that's why the Rambam says you can't be מבטל חמץ ידוע. The same thing with this Gemara. This Gemara all goes in the hava amina. When did we think it's chametz and you're mevatel? When you realize it's chametz. The Gemara asks, ולבתר איסורא לא מצי מבטל? You can't be mevatel after isur? I'll show you you could. So the Gemara is all learning now that you could be mevatel after זמן איסור. If you feel you could be mevatel after this זמן איסור, so then at that point, takeh, you could be מבטל חמץ ידוע also. So what's the kashya on the Rambam? Just like l'maaseh this is not true because you cannot be מבטל after זמן איסור, so the Rambam also holds you can't be מבטל חמץ ידוע. The שיטה is the Rambam, I don't know who agree with it, but at least we have answered the שיטה of the Rambam. But point going back to the inyanim here, so the first inyan we spoke about was that

according to Rashi, if you find chametz on Pesach, you're not over. I mean, you are over you're not over unless דעתו עליה, unless you hesitate from burning it. But if you just find it and go burn it, then there's no problem, you're not over. According to Tosafot, it's without דעתו עליה. דעתו עליה means something else. The fact that you found chametz on Pesach, right away you're over. So we ask, what is the difference? So I said the difference could be מתעסק. Now we'll say something else. The מחלוקת between Rashi and Tosafot is whether it is לך or מצוי. When you go to burn it, I'm just saying the way I understand this, you could argue it, when you go to burn the chametz, what inyan are you going to fight? What is this against, against the מצוי or against the לך? Against the מצוי, not against לך. Vadai it'll happen that when you burn it there's no more לך, not because there's no more לך, there's no more chametz! So there's nothing to be yours. But what you're doing is it's available, I'm getting rid of it. So what it does is it minimizes the מצוי. So according to Rashi who says that the whole reason for the איסור חמץ is the מצוי, so the moment you're mitasek to burn it, so it's not a hundred percent מצוי, so there's no real issur. Mah she'ein ken Tosafos that learns that the whole issur is לך, whether you go to burn it, you go don't go to burn it, the לך is the same. It's still לך. And therefore according to Tosafos you're over right away. Ah, you might ask, but even according to Tosafos, the reason is the לך, but it has to be מצוי also, it's a tenai. So lefoal since you're trying to burn it, you're you're trying to get you're getting rid of the מצוי. No, according to Tosafos we said it doesn't have to be מצוי. If it's not מצוי, you're not over. In this case, you can't say it's not מצוי. See, this is a case where it's not not מצוי, but it's not מצוי either. It's not מצוי completely because you're getting rid of it, but yet it's not not מצוי, it's still around! So according to Rashi that you have to have complete מצוי, the moment you're trying to get rid of it, it's not complete מצוי, finished, חרוב, you're not over. According to Tosafos the לך is the same. The fact that it's being burned so it takes away with the מצוי, but it doesn't minimize the not being מצוי. So therefore according to Tosafos, you're over right away. And that's why this is the machloket between Rashi and Tosafos. The same thing in the other thing, you could say whether According

according to Rashi, the fact that it's אסור מדרבנן is still enough that you shouldn't be מקדש. You have to add because המקדש אדעתא דרבנן, you make kiddushin, דרבנן take away the kiddushin. And we said that some bring re'aya that Tosafos doesn't learn like that. It solves our problem with this also. An איסור דרבנן, yeah? If the ikar is the לך, which means is it yours? The לפועל ממש, because it's אסור בהנאה, you can't get any money for it, so it's not yours. מצוי part is still there. לפשטות, because it's still there. Ai that the Torah is, that the, because the Torah allows you to have it, it's not yours. It's not yours, but it's מצוי. So Tosafot who says the ikar is the לך, says oh, so then this is no kiddushin. According to Rashi it should be kiddushin. And go a step further, just to explain this nekudah just for one second, that בכלל we know that the שיטה is that a איסור דרבנן is only on the גברא and not on the חפצא. Nothing new, which means like this: when the Rabbanan make something asur, it's only that they אסר the person from doing it, but the thing itself is not asur. Now the Rebbe brings it many times. The

Rebbe quotes a kashya from Tanya, in תניא פרק ח, it's משמע clearly not like that. Because the whole point of this whole... It's like this, just take a minute and explain this: The Netivot says in Choshen Mishpat that if somebody does a איסור דרבנן בשוגג, doesn't need a kaparah. But if you do an איסור דר... If you eat something טריף דרבנן, you don't need a... B'shogeg, you don't need a kaparah, it's an... But if you eat something בשוגג דאורייתא, you need a kaparah. And the Torat Chesed explains why. He says like this: Let's say someone eats poison b'shogeg. I didn't know it was poison, so it won't hurt him? It will hurt him anyway. If something's טריף מדאורייתא, it's poison. It's רוחניותדיק poison, whatever, it's poison. Whether you had actually, whether you knew about it or not, it's poison. You've got to have a kaparah, you got to, you got to go to the doctor, you got to get rid of it. A איסור דרבנן is not poison. When the Torah, when the רבנן said you can't eat this, it's not treif. It's only that we have a חיוב to listen to what the רבנן tell us. So we can't eat it, but the thing itself is is not poison. Therefore, if I know it's that it's a איסור דרבנן and I eat it, I need a kaparah because I did a פעולה against the רבנן. But if I didn't mean to go against the רבנן, I didn't know anything about it, the fact that I ate it doesn't do any harm, because the thing itself is not treif. Or using the חסידישע שפראך, it's not שלש קליפות הטמאות. Oh, it's קליפת נוגה. But the gavra can't do it. But you can't eat, right, the gavra is not allowed to eat it. Now in Tanya it says, פרק ח, that if you eat something treif, even if you used and you make and you get help from it, and then you daven b'kavanah with the koach of what you ate, if it's treif, it doesn't go up. And he says even if it's דרבנן, ואפילו בלא הודע, he says even if you don't know it. So from there we see that the Alter Rebbe holds that איסור דרבנן is an איסור on the chefza too. The Beit Meir? Yes, so the Beit Meir is the one that speaks about it. He brings back and forth. The Rebbe in many places, many places, says clearly that the איסור דרבנן is an איסור on the gavra, not on the chefza. In some הערות it says, ראה תניא פרק ח. I remember once, when the Rebbe said this, we asked the Rebbe: How does this fit with Tanya? And the Rebbe answered: כמדומה כבר נתבאר בהתוועדות... I once explained it in a farbrengen, I don't remember when and what, and we looked for it, looked for it, we didn't find which farbrengen the Rebbe explained it. And in in in Likkutei Sichos many times the Rebbe says this as a fact, that it's an איסור דרבנן only on the gavra. And at certain places he even says להעיר מתניא, and he doesn't answer how it's, how the kushya from Tanya. Whatever. But angenumen is angenumen is that it's... The Beit Meir's סברות that are different, that even if it's only on the גברא, but sof kol sof it turns to the חפצא, whatever the ביאור he has of it. But this is... So, you learn like that, lichora: לך is the גברא, מצוי is the חפצא, the thing. Now when it's only אסור בהנאה מדרבנן, so if we're trying to see if it affects the לך, yes, it affects the לך. But if you want to know if it affects the מצוי, which is the חפצא, that it doesn't. So Tosafot who goes according to לך, says that it's an איסור הנאה מדרבנן, you can't be מקדש with it, without אפקעינהו רבנן, without saying המקדש אדעתא דרבנן. According to Rashi, all the עיקר is מצוי. So the fact that it's דרבנן is not enough. So Rashi has to add that it's because the רבנן took away the קידושין. If you got someone in your house and comes, and calls you up and tells you you have to burn it, right? To see if it's... You have to go and burn it now that you know? Now that you know, it's לך? No, but it's not... מדרבנן, so you're not עובר דאורייתא. Yeah, but see if you... but you don't see it... Oh you don't, you don't, maybe you don't trust him, you mean? Maybe he's lying. No, no. No, so then if you know for sure you have it, then you have to go and get rid of it. It's לך. It's לך. It's מדרבנן, it's both, this is both. It's, it's your chametz and it's in your house. No, this is לך and מצוי. Could be all of it. Huh? All of it. That doesn't mean that... Okay, that's a, that's a, that is a... That's why they had

a she'elah, we once spoke about, we mentioned this: Nowadays, if you find chametz on Pesach, do you have to burn it? Are you allowed to burn it? It's גזילה! You sold everything, we write clearly that anything... I don't know, it's a good she'elah. I thought, I thought you once said that that the, that the goy allows... Oh, so we said so you have to make up with the goy. In case I find this, I should... But if you don't make a קפידא, how do you know he allows? But you do, right? No, not that. That was for something I once said. He had that house where the goy stayed there, so like twice I asked the גוי רשות. A guy sold his whole house chametz, so he went out of town, and this goy stayed in the house.