Alright. There are a few sugyot here, and we'll start with one, and see if the time will connect to the others. Gemara says here, אמר רב יהודה אמר רב: המוצא חמץ בביתו ביום טוב, כופה עליו את הכלי. Someone finds chametz in his house on Yom Tov, on Pesach, but it's Yom Tov, not Chol Hamoed, Yom Tov. You're not allowed to do melachah. So if you find chametz, what do you do? So he says you've got to cover it in the mean, and then after Yom Tov, Motzaei Yom Tov, you will burn it, because you cannot burn it then. You can't touch it, you can't pick it up, it's muktzeh, so you just got to cover it. Chol Hamoed you burn it, or it's, or if it's the last day of Yom Tov, then you burn it after Yom Tov. But you can't do it on Yom Tov. The question is, but in the meantime, you have chametz on Pesach. You're not allowed to have chametz on Pesach. You may not have that chametz, and when you have chametz you're עובר בל יראה ובל ימצא. It says you're not, there is a lav of בל יראה ובל ימצא.

How could you have chametz? Comes Rashi and says: מיהו בבל יראה לא עבר, that the fact that you will be holding the chametz there, you will not be עובר בל יראה, you won't do the aveirah of having chametz. Why? דהא בטליה מלבו דאינו נמאס לו, because he will mevatel it. כדאמרינן לקמן, the Gemara says later, הבודק צריך שיבטל בלבו, that when a person does the bedikah, in addition to getting rid of all the chametz that you have, you have to do bitul. So you nullify it anyway. So if you find chametz, you really are not over. Which means just in short, as we have known already from the whole Gemara before, that d'oraita, in order to get rid of chametz, in order to get rid of the aveirah of בל יראה, it's one of the two: or you do bitul, and that's enough, mide'oraisa you could choose the bitul and you're not over anymore; mide'oraisa you could do bitul chametz and have the chametz around in the house. Or if you want, don't do bitul, just do בדיקה וביעור, just check, search for it, and then you'll burn it. Derabbanan said that you have to do both. So this person who found chametz on Pesach, obviously, if he's a frummer yid, if he did everything right, he was mevatel it before Pesach. Since he was mevatel it, so you are not over mide'oraisa. The

only reason you've gotta get rid of it is only midrabbanan, because derabbanan said that bitul is not enough. So memeila, since he's not over mide'oraisa anyway, so derabbanan said, don't touch it. But derabbanan said bitul was not enough and that you need to do bedikah also? He definitely did bedikah. But he found now. Bedikah doesn't only mean searching. Bedikah means searching and then burning it. Now what happened here, he found the chametz, so he's obligated to burn it, right? Midrabbanan, not mide'oraisa, because he was mevatel it. And he wasn't mevatel by derabbanan? No, he's mevatel it. There's no such thing as mevatel derabbanan. He's mevatel it. So he's not over. Derabbanan said that even chametz that you're mevatel, you still have to get rid of it. So the fact that he must get rid of this chametz is only a din that derabbanan made. As far as the Torah is concerned, it's not a problem. He was mevatel it, he could have the chametz. The only reason now he must get rid of it is derabbanan. So it's nisht geferlech. In other words, derabbanan said, don't burn it because it's muktzeh. And even though in the meantime it sounds like, because of the issur derabbanan don't touch it, it's muktzeh, what, they're gonna tell you you're gonna be over on the איסור בל יראה ובל ימצא מדאורייתא? So he says, no, there is no בל יראה because you're mevatel it. So then, and why do you have to cover it? Because if you see it, you might come to eat it, you shouldn't, ומשום שלא ישכח ויאכלנו. Because you shouldn't forget to eat it, therefore צריך כפיית כלי, therefore you have to cover it. What do we see from this Rashi? That this din in the Gemara that you don't burn chametz on Pesach, on Yom Tov, is only because you were mevatel it ערב יום טוב.

What would be if a guy wasn't mevatel it? Isn't the חמץ מוקצה? Chametz is muktzeh, sure. But what, we'll see all the peratim soon. What what would be if he wouldn't be mevatel it? He forgot. Wasn't mevatel it, and then he finds chametz on Pesach. So now if he doesn't burn it, he's עובר בל יראה ובל ימצא. Or I'll give you a better example. If it became chametz on Pesach. You're only mevatel the chametz that you had. But let's say on Pesach the guy was baking, baked matzah, and by mistake, whatever happened, the chametz, the the dough grew and it became chametz. What do you do with it? And here, if you don't get rid of it, there will be בל יראה ובל ימצא, because you weren't mevatel it. So from Rashi is mashma that you have to burn it on Yom Tov. Because Rashi said the only reason that you don't burn it is because you were mevatel it. But if you would not have been mevatel it, you technically would have to burn it. And that's how the Ran learned. The Ran says the same thing. He quotes, brings the same lashon as Rashi, and even adds more. The only way to to mevatel was to burn? No, bitul is bitul in the heart. Is there no other way to get rid of it besides burning it? You have, okay, you can do that. You can do that. But you've got to get rid of it. So the the problem with burning it is only as a derabbanan? You know what, I'll I'll read the Alter Rebbe's chakirah clearly soon, and then you'll see all the details. I'm just first bringing it from the from the Gemara, from the from Rashi and the Ran, even Tosafos, we'll see, and then and then we'll see how it's brought down in Shulchan Aruch. Here, I'm quoting the Ran: המוצא חמץ ביו- חמץ ביום טוב כופה עליו סל, כלי. So he says, same thing, you have to, you can't take it away, hide it someplace, you got to cover it. דלא חזי לטלטולא, לאפוקי like Rashi says, you can't move it, you can't do anything with it, it's muktzeh. מיהו בבל יראה לא יעבר, you're not עובר בל יראה, דהא בטליה בלבו באמת, like רש״י ממש, because he was mevatel it the day before. How do we know he was mevatel it? Because אנן סהדי דכל מאן דבדיק צריך שיבטל בלבו, because it says clearly that every person, even if you're בודק, you must be, every person must be mevatel, so we assume he was mevatel. אלא משום שלא ישכח ויאכלנו כופה עליו סל, כלי, and because you shouldn't forget and eat it, that's why you cover it. ולמוצאי יום טוב שורפו, so on יום טוב don't burn it. וביום טוב לא מצי למישרפיה, on יום טוב itself, don't burn it. Now the question is why not? What's wrong with burning it? אף על גב דקיימא לן דמתוך שהותרה הבערה לצורך הותרה נמי שלא לצורך. Here is a melachah, making a fire on Yom Tov. Don't we know that for cooking, you're allowed to make a fire? And then we also know that Beit Hillel hold, so that's how we pasken, that just like you're allowed to make a fire for tzorech, for purpose of cooking, of eating, you're allowed to make a fire if it's not for the purpose of eating. So even though you're gonna burn the chametz and it won't be for the purpose of eating, but what's wrong with making, with burning on יום טוב? So he says, הני מילי, when can you make a fire on יום טוב? היכא דאיכא צורך היום קצת, as long as that there is a need for it, some kind of, not eating let's say, but there's a need for the day. אבל הכא לית כא, here there is no need. Why? דהא נפק ידי חובתיה בביטול. Since you were mevatel it, so it's, since you were mevatel it so there's no need. What comes out from the Ran, the same like Rashi and even more, what would be if you would not have been mevatel it? Then there is a need, and you're allowed to burn it. So that's the shita of the Rashi, Rashi and the Ran, that this din of the Gemara that you find chametz on Yom Tov, you can't burn it is only if it's chametz that you're not עובר בל יראה because you were mevatel it. A chametz that you were not mevatel you have to burn on Yom Tov. Tosafos in Shabbos דף כ״ד and Tosafos in Kesubos דף ז׳ ע״א says not like that. Tosafos say that even if you were not mevatel it, you can't burn it anyway. And the details, this is I'm gonna read you a whole se'if in Shulchan Aruch, I, one of the shiurim I think I read that se'if, but we'll read it again for a different, last time I brought in it for a different purpose, different angle, here's a different angle. Here it starts like this, the Alter Rebbe in תקמ״ו סעיף ה׳ says, and this is mamash this, this Gemara: המוצא חתיכת חמץ בביתו ביום טוב או בשבת, you found a piece of חמץ in your house יום טוב or שבת, אפילו יש בה כזית, even if there's a כזית, לא יבערנה ביום, don't destroy it on that day, אלא יכפה עליה כלי עד הערב, עד הערב cover it with a כלי till evening, לכסותה מעין, to cover it from people shouldn't see it, why? שלא ישכח ויאכלנה, in order you shouldn't forget and eat it, ובערב יבערנה, at night you'll burn it. במה דברים אמורים, when is this דין that you don't burn it? בחמץ שנתחמץ קודם שביטל חמצו בי״ד, if it's a kind of chametz that was chametz before you were mevatel. So therefore you were mevatel that, שאינו עובר עליו בבל יראה ובל ימצא מן התורה, so you're not over. אבל בחמץ שנתחמץ בפסח, but let's say chametz that became on פסח, הרי זה יבערנו אפילו ביום טוב, then you destroy it on יום טוב, כדי שלא יעבור עליו בבל יראה ובל ימצא, in order not to be over. And he goes on the details what should you do with it, you throw it into the river, try, don't burn it, try to make less חילול יום טוב as possible, if you don't have a river, flush it down the toilet, we go on toilet, because if you don't have, then you could burn it on Yom Tov, you could burn it. Yeah, and then he goes into here the פרטים. And who is the mareh makom to this din? Rashi, and Ran, Tur, and Rif, which is the Rashi and the Ran, who say this din. And I'm just skipping a few lines here. Then he goes on, ויש חולקין

על זה, there are others that argue, ואומרים, and say, who's the others? Tosafot Shabbat, and Tosafot Ketubot, like we said. And here the Alter Rebbe explains in detail what Tosafot doesn't even say, but after all the מפרשים explain Tosafot, this is what comes out. Some argue and say, דאפילו נתחמץ בפסח, even if it became chametz on פסח, לא יבערנו ביום, don't destroy it on Yom Tov. ואפילו יש לפניו נהר, let's say not to burn it, you have a river, you could just drop it in, לא ישליכנו לשם, don't throw it there. Why? כיון שהחמץ אסור בהנאה בפסח, since chametz can't have any use from it on פסח, הרי הוא מוקצה, ואסור לטלטלו ביום טוב. It's muktzeh, you can't touch muktzeh, you can't, not touch, can't move muktzeh on Yom Tov. And why is this muktzeh? שהרי אינו ראוי לכלום, you can't do anything with it. Something that's not edible and it's not, it's not, it's muktzeh. So even though this is something that you were not mevatel, don't do it. ואף על פי שאיסור טלטול מוקצה אינו אלא מדברי סופרים, not to move muktzeh is דרבנן, וביעור חמץ שלא ביטלו קודם הפסח מן התורה, and to destroy chametz that you were not mevatel before Pesach is a דין דאורייתא, שעובר עליו בבל יראה ובל ימצא, מכל מקום, and this is how it starts, חכמים

העמידו דבריהם במקום עשה ולא תעשה. But Chachamim didn't care. They put their din of not touching, not moving muktzeh, even against a mitzvas aseh v'lo ta'aseh of the Torah. Here it's a mitzvas aseh of tashbisu, destroy, and the lo ta'aseh of לא יראה, בל יראה, רבנן didn't care. שיש כח ביד חכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה בשב ואל תעשה. The Rabbanan have a right, that's a klal, to just tell us not to do something the Torah wants us to do. They can't tell us to do something the Torah says don't do, but they could tell us don't do something that the Torah wants. The best dugma always we give is from shofar on Shabbos. That mi-d'oraita you have to blow shofar on שבת, Rabbanan said don't, and they have a right to do it. כלומר שאינו עובר על מצות התורה בידים you're not going to do something against the תורה, אלא יושב ובטל, you won't do something, he is mevatel a mitzvas aseh, and it's בטל ומבוטל. Then it goes weiter. This is only if you're going to pick it up and throw it to the river, that's muktzeh, okay. What about burning it without touching it? Take a match and throw at it, let it burn. ואפילו לשורפו במקומו to burn in it, asur. You can't. אף על פי שאינו מטלטלו. He's not moving it. So what should be the problem here? Muktzeh is not here. The melachah of burning lechora shouldn't be a problem because you're allowed to make a fire on Yom Tov. So he says, ומלאכת השריפה הותרה לצורך אכילה, you're allowed to make a fire for eating. אין אומרים בזה שמתוך שהותרה לצורך אכילה הותרה לצורך מצוה. So we don't say that the klal like we always say, any melachah that's allowed to eat is allowed for this also. So lechora you should be allowed to make a fire. This is the kashya that the Ran over here asked. He says you don't say it. כיון שמן התורה אפשר לקיים המצוה בלא חילול יום טוב. Since mi-d'oraita this is, he's taking it from both ends, mi-d'oraita you could do it without חילול יום טוב. דהיינו שישליכנו בנהר או בבית הכסא. Mid'oraita you don't have to burn it. שהרי טלטול מוקצה אינו אסור אלא מדברי סופרים. The whole thing of muktzeh is only derabbanan, so mid'oraita you don't have to burn it. Now we don't let you take it, see mid'oraita you can take it and throw it in the garbage, into the river. The fact is you can't do it because the Rabbanan don't let you, but mid'oraita says I don't care, as far as I'm concerned you're allowed to. So if you're allowed to destroy it by throwing it away, making a fire is not a need, so there is no tzorech. Or he says you can מפרר וזורה לרוח, yeah? לפיכך אסור לשרוף החמץ ביום טוב מן התורה. So you can't burn it. ואי אפשר לחכמים להתיר דבר אסור מן התורה. The Rabbanan don't want to be, can't, not don't want, can't be matir something not allowed. If the Torah says this is a situation where you can't make a fire, they can't tell you make a fire. So to make a fire you can't because mid'oraita you don't have to, so it's not tzorech, it's not a need. Ela mai to destroy it with other fire you can't, derabbanan, so that's why you can't do it. So therefore even though this is a inyan that... אלא כופה עליו כלי עד הערב. Therefore you can't do it, you leave it, you cover it. But then the Alter Rebbe adds, ועל שיהוי זו שמשהה את החמץ עד הערב, and the fact that he's now going to hold chametz, he found chametz in the morning, for a whole day he's going to hold chametz in his house. אינו עובר בבל יראה ובל ימצא. The bottom line is even though the whole thing started that the chachamim don't care that you're over, but the bottom line will be you're not over. Why? כיון שהוא רוצה לבערו, he really wants to destroy it. אלא שהחכמים מונעים אותו, the chachamim hold him back, harei hu anus. He's forced. What difference does it make, saying peshat here, whether two goyim hold you by the hand and don't let you burn the chametz, you'll be an anus, ones rachmana patrei. Here the chachamim hold you, tied your hands and they said you don't burn it, so you're not over. Worse. Huh? Even more. By goyim you can get away. Get away, here you can't get away, exactly. ולא הזהירה תורה בבל יראה ובל ימצא אלא למי שיש בידו לבערו. You're only over on bal yera'eh if you're able to destroy it. If you can't destroy it, you're not over. So we have the machloket here. So what I really need to know is by trying to do, what is the yesod of the machloket? What is the two... one of... so there are many, many things that are said because there are so many aspects here that you כאפ on that they argue on this prat and that prat and all kinds of pratim. So I'm going to try to say a certain prat which is maybe looks like a minor prat here, but that could be also, not saying only, but also an angle in which they argue, in which they differ, that's why they argue. Maybe that's one of them. What's that? You think k'le'achar yad you'll be able to do it? He says later... he says, those that do like סברא ראשונה that אין לחוש... אבל מכל מקום יש להחמיר כסברא אחרונה. But still he says there are other ways you could do. You could tell a goy to throw it בנהר או בבית הכסא. You're not allowed to have hana'ah from it. While this being personal fire, you're not allowed to have hana'ah from the chametz. He says, he gives etzahs what to do here. Yeah, okay, so he says other etzahs too. This is just the עיקר הדין of the way it is מצד הדין you can't. Now there are etzahs, you'll find etzahs. This is the din, the din. Okay. So we have have to know what is the machloket here. Then let's go to a further sugya. Another another inyan here which is right afterwards, which is not lichora not connected, but it could have a shaychut.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב: המפרש והיוצא בשיירא קודם שלשים יום אין זקוק לבער, תוך שלשים יום זקוק לבער. Someone leaves the house before Pesach. So so the beraita so Rav Yehuda amar Rav said, it depends when you leave. You leave within 30 days, you have to do the bedikah, if and then destroy the chametz. If you leave before 30 days, you don't have to. It has nothing to do with our times, because we sell the chametz, it's a different story. But I'm saying that this has nothing to do with selling. אמר Abaye, Abaye said like this: הא דאמרת תוך שלשים יום זקוק לבער, this that he said that within 30 days you have to destroy the חמץ, לא אמרן אלא שדעתו לחזור. It's only if you plan to come back in middle of Pesach. אבל אין דעתו לחזור אין זקוק לבער. But if you don't come plan to come back in middle of Pesach, so even within 30 days you don't have to do it. אמר ליה Rava, Rava said, what are you talking about? אי דעתו לחזור, if you plan to come back, אפילו מראש השנה נמי. Even from Rosh Hashanah you have to do it. And here Rosh Hashanah doesn't mean Rosh Hashanah. It's not Rosh Hashanah. It means the beginning of the year, a year ago. If you leave the house a few days after Pesach, and you know you're not and you're going to come back next year in middle of Pesach, you have to do take care of it because you're going to come back and you have chametz. What's the שייכות? אלא אמר רבא, רבא said different: הא דאמרת קודם שלשים יום אין זקוק לבער, this that before 30 you don't, that's only if you don't plan to come back. But if you plan to come back, you always have to do it. So, the bottom line is there's a מחלוקת אביי ורבא here. Abaye said that if you plan to If you don't plan to come back, you never have to do it. That's if you don't plan to come back ever. No, no. During Pesach. Come back after Pesach, who cares? You don't plan to come back in middle of Pesach. But if you plan to come back, then if you leave within 30 days, you have to destroy the chametz. But if you leave before 30 days, you don't. And Rava said, what are you talking about? If you plan to come back in middle of Pesach, then you have to do it anytime. If you don't plan to come back, then really you don't have to do it, but the Rabbanan said, if it's within 30 days, you have to do it. What you need to understand is what is the סברא of Abaye? Rava makes a lot of sense. If since you're planning to come back in middle of Pesach, so what's the difference whenever you leave? You know you have to do it. But what's the סברא of Abaye? Now, לכאורה, the סברא of Abaye could be understood after we understand the סברא of Rava. What is the סברא of Rava? So it's a poshute zach, but I'll just read it's it's in a shichah, so we'll read it from the shichah. A shichah that I mentioned also other times. The Rebbe says like this: הנה במצוה שקיומם בזמנים מיוחדים And those מצות that you have to keep certain times, אם קיום המצוה דורש הכנה והכשרה If the מצוה needs time to prepare before, כגון, תקיעת שופר, let's say blowing שופר, שצריך להתאמן ולהתרגל כדי שיוכל לתקוע You have to train yourself. You have to learn how to blow. Get a shofar. או אם צריך השתדלות מוקדמת כדי להשיג חפצי המצוה כד' מינים וכדומה For instance Sukkos. You have to get the ד' מינים before Sukkos. You have to get that asset before Sukkos. מובן לכאורה It's understood, בפשטות, לכאורה, שחיוב ההכנה מתחיל לפני זמן קיום המצוה. That when are you obligated to do to make sure to have the mitzvah? Not when the time comes. Before that you have to make sure to get to prepare to the מצוה, כדי שבבוא הזמנו יוכל לקיימה כתיקונה. When the time comes, you'll have to. And if you know 3 months before that you won't have a shofar on Rosh Hashanah where you're going to be, you have an obligation now to make sure that for Rosh Hashanah comes, you get a shofar. That was you have to get a shofar now. That's the only way you'll do it. And there's a chiyuv. Mhm. How come nobody did this, where's the sevara? Yeah. Who says it's a chiyuv? And here it says a chiyuv. Somebody has to get them. He says, think.

Maybe till the day comes, you don't have to do anything. When the day comes, if you don't have, you're an ones. Come on, I don't have, what to do? So we know we do it. שאלה is there a chiyuv? So the Rebbe says, בפשטות, there is a chiyuv. It's a whole הערה here. We spoke about it once by קרבן פסח. But here the Rebbe, that same הערה that I brought to the קרבן פסח, I started then from the middle of the הערה. The first beginning of the הערה, the Rebbe brings an example to this idea. Where do we find this idea that you're obligated before the זמן to do it? So he says, על דרך זה מצינו בענין מצות תשביתו דביעור חמץ. פסחים דף ד' עמוד א'. He brings our Gemara. אמר רב הא דאמר אמר רבא. He quotes Rava. That this that we say that if you go away before before שלשים יום you don't have to destroy it, it's only if you don't plan to come back. אבל דעתו לחזור If you plan to come back, אפילו מראש השנה זקוק לבער. So we see clearly here that there is an obligation even before. Then he quotes alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch. Shulchan Aruch Admor Hazaken, תל״ו, סעיף ו', it says like this: זה שיוצא מביתו ולא יחזור קודם הפסח, You leave the house and you won't come back before פסח, שכשיגיע חצות יום י״ד לא יוכל לבדוק ולבער החמץ שבביתו, so in a way that when ערב פסח will come, you will not be able to destroy your חמץ, הרי משעה זו שהוא מפליג מביתו the time you leave your house, חל עליו מצות תשביתו מן התורה תורה. Mid'oraita, you have to destroy the chametz from Rosh Hashanah, a year before. שמן התורה אין חילוק בין תוך ל׳ יום וקודם ל׳. The whole thing of thirty days is a דרבננ'דיקע דין. So the Rebbe here clearly, this is the הערה to what he said in the פנים. So he explains clearly what is the reason for Rava. And the halacha is like Rava as we quote the Alter Rebbe. Rava doesn't say. No, no, the Alter Rebbe says. Yeah, yeah, he quotes the Alter Rebbe, מן התורה, he says. Yeah, quotes, I quoted the Alter Rebbe. When he leaves he's מחוייב תשביתו מן התורה. And he says in the bottom, וכן משמע בחינוך. He quotes the Chinuch, it says, מצות עשה, מאימת מוטל עליו המצוה? It starts off, the Chinuch talks about תשביתו, destroying chametz, and then he says, when does the mitzvah start? And he continues, if you go out into the way, it starts when you leave. So, מן התורה. But al kol panim, what I'm trying to bring out from here, you see that the Rebbe is masbir Rava's שיטה, that Rava holds that the din by a mitzvah is that the chiyuv doesn't start when the time comes. The chiyuv is now. למשל, we today have a mitzvah of matzah. Not we, we don't eat matzah now, but today we have a mitzvah that on Pesach we're going to eat matzah. It's not the pshat that when Pesach will come the mitzvah will start, the mitzvah is now. Which by the way, in רוחניות'דיקע ענינים it's a very deeper inyan. When we say that Torah

is נצחי, Torah is eternal forever. So פשוט פשט, what does that, that mean? It'll go on for all generations, it will not stop. The taytsh is more deeper than that. Every second of one's life, every single mitzvah of the 613 mitzvot you're mechuyav. Not the peshat today I have a chiyuv of תפילין, שבת will come, we'll do Shabbos, because otherwise it comes out like this: Torah is taka forever, but Shabbos is only once a week, so it's not always, you don't always have the whole Torah. The teirutz is not, we do have, every part of the Torah we have always. Today I have a chiyuv of Shabbos. You can have. On Shabbos I have a chiyuv, whatever is not שבת'דיק, I have a chiyuv that when that will come, I'll do it. Not that I have a chiyuv to do it today, I don't have a chiyuv to keep Shabbos today, but today I have a chiyuv that when Shabbos will come, I have to keep it. That can be, yeah, whatever, good, whatever you can arrange, arrange, but I'm talking about in the רוחניות'דיקע דרגא, not in practical, not in the גשמיות. The רוחניות is that the chiyuv is always there. On Pesach, not always can you do the הכנות. If you can do it, you can do it. The chiyuv is always there of every single mitzvah. Yeah. Yeah, that's peshat here, that's pashut peshat here. And and the Rogatchover says

it, yes, בנוגע לגבי נדר, a person makes a neder not to eat, not to eat matzah. Pesach comes, does he have to eat matzah? Now the she'eilah what came first? מושבע ועומד מהר סיני. But even if it's מושבע ועומד מהר סיני, what came first? Which neder? If I'm not mechuyav today matzah, so the neder of not eating matzah came, and then when the חיוב מצה comes, it can't be חל on my neder. But if I'm mechuyav today, so now I'm מושבע ועומד מהר סיני. No, מושבע ועומד is in peshatus talking in a case when you make a neder not to eat matzah on Pesach. A shevuah. I'm not talking about that, so I make a shevuah not to eat matzah ever. The shevuah is chal. Okay, the she'eilah, is it chal on Pesach? That's not לעולם, or a whole year, or whatever. So there the she'eilah, but if I already today have a chiyuv to eat matzah on Pesach, on that day it can be chal. But if it's not, so it's chal, and when Pesach comes, it can't be. So the Ragatchover has a whole stirah, a stirah in the Raavad. There's a Raavad on the Rambam, and he has a stirah in it. But it's it's I think this vort, this is connected to נצחיות התורה, I didn't see anywhere. I'm just saying on my own that if you learn like this, it brings out the whole concept of נצחיות התורה always. So you can't do it today, but the chiyuv is still there. The chiyuv is there even though it's Shabbos, yes. The chiyuv today is that when the mitzvah will come, I have to do it, and whatever I can, if I have things to I can do today, I have to do today if I have to. The chiyuv is... Anyway, לכאורה לפי זה, if this is the reason for Rava, then let's go on Abaye. So of

course Abaye holds not like that. Abaye holds there is no such chiyuv. The chiyuv is when the time comes. When Pesach comes, you have to לבער חמץ, you have to be meva'er chametz, there is no chiyuv before. So mid'oraita, even a day before I don't have to. The fact that there's a חשבון of thirty days, the Rabbanan made. So they only made it if you plan to come back, but if not, not. I just think it's a very hard thing sevara to say that that's the machloket, because if לפי זה, it means that Abaye will hold, not only with Pesach, this is a shita of Abaye that by all mitzvot you're not mechuyav till it comes, which is you know, against seichel of pshatus, and against the... Other things that R'' Aizik and he brings, whatever brings here, and this and that, and the Yeshuot Yaakov brings. It's not a פשוטע זאך to say. I can't say I looked through it to see that everything with Abaye would have to be, I'm just saying bichlal, before looking in, it's not mistaber that this is his sevara. That this is Rava's sevara, for sure. But not that, but that Abaye argues not because of that, there must be some other reason why Abaye argues. Okay. To explain this, let's just go to the other, another inyan, heist, to explain the inyan. We've been talking a few times בנוגע Rashi and Tosafot and the Ran, בנוגע what they learn is the פשט התורה עשאתו כאילו ברשותו, still getting, still קריכנדיק with that. Okay, that's bichlal how I go always, right? You start a masechta, there is a certain chakira and this, and then you the whole masechta. I think, I mean Bava Kamma, it's שמר ולא שמר את ממונו, כתובות, all, all different. Anyway, so, one second, getting back to what you said, being mechuyav on the mitzvah by every moment, then, preparation to the mitzvah. Yeah. Why are you mechuyav? Because since you're mechuyav in the mitzvah, so therefore you have to do everything for the mitzvah. If you wouldn't be mechuyav in the mitzvah, then why would you have to prepare for it now? You're saying the theory? Yeah, you can't do the theory right. In theory you're obligated. In theory you're obligated, and therefore that theory comes into poal if it's noge'a. If it's noge'a. If it's, in a case where it's noge'a, sometimes it's not. If I know I'm going to have a shofar on Rosh Hashanah, I don't have to do anything today to get it. No, prepare, because I have it. But if I know I won't have it, I have to prepare. So, we've been saying that there are two ways to learn when the Gemara says דף ד' עמוד ב' that באמת חמץ is not yours. Comes Pesach, chametz is not yours. Because it's אסור בהנאה, אסור בהנאה has no value, so it's nothing. But, how could you be עובר בל יראה בל ימצא? בל יראה means you can't have your chametz. But it's not yours. אלא מאי, התורה עשאתו כאילו ברשותו. The Torah made it yours. So we said there are two ways to learn. The Torah made it yours could be that the Torah made it yours, originally it's not yours, it would seem not to be yours, but the Torah said that it is yours. The other way that, that's how Tosafot would learn, Rashi would learn, and the Ran, I think, learned, Torah didn't make it yours, Torah said that there's no problem that it's not yours. The חסרון of not yours is not there. That's all it is. And I explained that that's the machloket whether bitul is based on hefker or bitul is based on the fact that it's תשביתו. Tosafot learns it's based on hefker. Why? Because since it's mamash yours, the only way to get rid of it is you're ממש מפקיר it, you give it up. The Ran and Rashi, בכללות, in פרטים I said you can learn they divide the שיטה, but בכללות they learn that it's not yours. And that's why you don't really need a big hefker. The Ran says it clearly. The Ran says how come there are certain דינים in hefker that don't apply to bitul? If bitul is hefker, then they should have all the dinim of hefker. So he says, no, here it's different. Because chametz really is not yours. The Torah made it yours, so this is enough. If we're going to learn that the peshat is that the Torah made it yours and that it taka became yours, so what what kind of terutz is he giving? He says why don't you need the real din of hefker? Because it's not really yours, the Torah just made it yours. Nu, so the Torah made it yours, so now it's back to yours! Obviously he means that the Torah made it yours and it's not, it's still not yours. משא\"כ Tosafot learns that it is. To put those in other words, there are two dinim by Pesach, by chametz: there's a din of lech and there is a din of matzui. The Torah says לא יראה לך חמץ. Chametz should not be seen to you. Lech means you. The Gemara has a whole sugya here, דרש'ס here on דף ה' עמוד ב', the famous דרשה שלך אי אתה רואה אבל אתה רואה של אחרים ושל גבוה. Yours you can't see, but a גוי'ס you could. So there is a din of lech, that chametz that's yours you are over. Then there is the לשון הפסוק לא ימצא, it shouldn't be found by you. So there's a din of matzui. And the Gemara in a few places here brings that if it's matzui, if it's found by you, you're already over. Lemashel, the Gemara says if you take chametz of a goy and a goy gives you chametz a פיקדון to hold and you're מקבל אחריות, you took responsibility, that chametz is like yours and you're chayav, you're mechuyav to destroy it. And the Gemara says, the Gemara says like this, there is a machloket whether דבר הגורם לממון כממון דמי. Something that brings to money, does that have a din of money? Is something that you take responsibility for, which means that if something will happen to it you will have to pay, that means that you are responsible, so it's yours? So one opinion holds, בכלל ר' Shimon holds דבר הגורם לממון כממון. So the Gemara asks, if you hold like Rabbi' Shimon we understand why. If you have chametz of a goy it's not yours, but since you took responsibility and it's גורם לממון, it'll bring to money, so it's like money. But if you hold like the Rabbanan that argue and say דבר הגורם לממון לאו כממון, so why are you, why is he over? So the Gemara says שאני הכא דאמר קרא לא ימצא. The Torah says it shouldn't be found, and this is called found by you. Here also the Gemara could have said הוה מצי Here the גמרא דרש דווקא רחמנא בלשון לא ימצא, מי שמצוי בידך. It has to be מצוי. So what is it? There are two dinim. There's a din of שלך and a din of מצוי. It has to be yours, and it has to be מצוי by you. It has to מצוי means found by you. Found is a technical thing. It has to be in in your possession. Not possession as ownership, found by you, it's in your house. Now,

whenever we have two dinim by something, there's always a חקירה: Which of the two is the ikar, and which is not? Always? Usually, yeah. And sometimes we'll come to the conclusion they're both ikar. Sometimes we'll come to the conclusion one is the ikar, the other one is not. I always use the example regarding the the the Bava Kama that we've been talking about, that the reason you're chayav if your שור, your ox was מזיק you have to pay, why? There are two things: Number one, because it's yours. Your ox, you're responsible. Number two, because you didn't watch it. So there's a big shaila: Which of the two is the ikar? Is the reason you're chayav is because it's your mamon? It's yours, you're chayav. Ela mai? If you watched it, the Torah patared you. Or the opposite: The reason you're chayav is because you didn't watch it, but it has to be yours. But the the the the סיבה, the cause of the chiyuv is that you didn't watch it. Now nafka mina will be ענין להלכה, I mean the הגהות Let's say a guy didn't watch it. No, a guy did watch it. It was his ox, and he watched it. So he's patur. Is this It's going to sound like philosophical words, but it's really I'm just using these fancy words, but Is it העדר החיוב or שלילת החיוב? Which one is it? There's a chiluk between העדר and שלילה. העדר means it's not there. שלילה means you're taking it away. Okay, you have the word? Yeah. I'm using terminology. Lemashal, if at night there is no light here, that's העדר. There is no light. During the day, if I close the shades, it's שלילה. I'm taking away the light. Candle, when it burns down, it's העדר האש, no אש. If you like to extinguishing it, it's שלילה. If I have if I have a shor that was מזיק, but I watched it, I'm patur. If the whole reason you're chayav is because you didn't watch it, if you did watch it, there is no chiyuv. I mean there is no reason to be to be chayav. If we're saying, \"No, the reason you're chayav is because it's your mamon, but if you watched it, the Torah patared it,\" so what is it? It's שלילה. The Torah was שולל the chiyuv. It means you earned it. You have the reason for to be chayav. Give another example in a different ענין altogether, Bava Basra. It's also one of the chakirot, not in the whole masechta, but in in חזקת הבתים. It's one of the famous chakirot, and the chakirah itself different ways, the way different acharonim talk about it, and so on and so forth. But I'll put it out in one way: When you are

sitting When you have a field, sit in a field, in a house for three years, and the owner comes after three years and says, \"Hey, what are you doing in my house?\" \"Well, I bought it.\" He says, \"You bought it? Where's your shtar?\" \"I don't have it. I lost it.\" So the din is the fact that he was there three years, he keeps it, unless the guy made a mecha'ah. The guy made a protest in the middle of the three years, then it's not. So there's a she'eilah in the in the acharonim We have So we have two things here that make it yours: the fact that you're there for three years, and the fact that he didn't make a mecha'ah. Which of the two is the reason? So some say the reason is like this: Just like by metaltelin, not by karka, by land, by objects, if I hold something, and you come to me and say, \"Listen here, that's mine,\" we pask the דין, המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. You prove it. Why does he prove it? Why not It's a safek, who's right? Everyone I Every bachur, why? \"Well, because המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה.\" So I'm asking, \"Why is המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה?\" Yeah, because I have it. חזקה כל מה שתחת יד אדם שלו היא. It's a chazakah. If I have it, it's mine. You're trying to take it out of the chazakah, prove it. So the chazakah is mine. So some say the same thing is by karka. The fact that I'm sitting in the karka, that itself that's the re'ayah it's mine, I don't need anything more. The only thing is if you would be mocheh, you would spoil my chazakah. But the reason it's mine is because I'm there. I was machzik for three years, that's the צדדיק reason. Cuz till three years we have a re'ayah against you, where's your shtar? By metaltelin there is no shtar, so there is no kushya. Here there is a shtar. And more than three years, you're not expected to keep a shtar, so we have no more kushya. But the the logic, the nekudah, the yesod is the fact that I have it, I'm there. The fact that you you say it's mine only if you were not mocheh, not because not being mocheh is the reason why it's mine, it's just had you been mocheh, it could spoil the chazakah. Then there is a סברא פארקערט, and from the Rambam is mashma like that. The Rambam, when he speaks about metaltelin, he says the chazakah is whatever you hold is yours. By karka, he says it's not true. We don't say karka By קרקע there's no chazakah. He says לא אמרינן. But what is the reason, why is there a chazakah? Three years passed, and you weren't mocha. Hey, why weren't you mocha? So the fact that he wasn't mocha, that's what makes the chazakah. Ela mai? If I'm not sitting there for three full years, the fact that he wasn't mocha is not enough, because I I'm I don't I'm not holding here. That that's the פרשה. Here also, what would be the if the person was not, was mocha? So I don't have a chazakah. Is it העדר or a שלילה? Well, it would depend. Which again is what? העדר is the not, zero you called it, and שלילה is the negate. So if the whole reason why it's mine is because I'm sitting in it, I still have the same chazakah. The only thing is you're spoiling it. By the fact that you were mocha you're spoiling it. If the whole reason I get it is because you were not mocha, if you were mocha, there is no reason why I There's no chazakah to begin with. I'm just using this as an example that there are two inyanim. על דרך זה... In other words, here we have Are העדר and שלילה equal? Are they equal? In the eyes of the law, I mean, depends where? No, but the way the examples I gave before are equal, but sometimes they're not. Other places they're not. Here Here it is. I'm not bringing out lema'aseh, this is just just to have that understanding of it. You have two inyanim here. You have the לך and you have the מצוי. So it comes out like this, what you could say, I mean if you look at According to Tosafos, that we said Tosafos learned the Torah made it yours, you know why? Because Tosafos learned that the ikar of why chametz is the לך. Why are you עובר בל יראה? Because it's yours. So when it comes to Pesach and it's not yours, how can you be עובר? So what must we say? Torah made it yours. It can't be any other way. Torah made it yours. According to Rashi, the ikar why you're עובר is because it's מצוי by you. Chametz that's in your possession, not your possession of ownership, I mean technically found by you, you are עובר for it. There is a condition that if it's not yours, you're not over. So all you need is the Torah should say we take away the fact that it's not yours. See, if it's not yours it spoils the issur. So the Torah just All Torah doesn't have to make it yours. The Torah just has to say it is this, that we don't care it's not We make it We take away the fact that it's not yours. It's not not yours, it doesn't have to be yours. It's I mean technically there's no such thing. In Chassidus we find such things that יצא מכלל אין ולא בא לכלל יש, but in in in what the Rambam says לגבי עבד כנעני, יצא מכלל גוי ולכלל ישראל לא בא, but in gashmiyus there's no such thing. If it's not not yours, it's yours. But I'm saying, but in here in halacha, it's not like that. According to Rashi it doesn't have to be yours. That's what Rashi means, that's how we learned kavanas Rashi. So, what is always noge'a, we are going to look in the inyan. So we're talking about Rashi Tosafos learned the ikar issur is לך, and Rashi learned the ikar is the מצוי. That's what you could say. The difference between these two is לך is a halacha. It's a halachadike thing. Something is yours, who says it's yours? It's a din. Say, it's a law. מצוי is a metzius. מצוי is not a law, מצוי is a fact. It's there. Okay. So we have to keep that in mind. Now

let's go to the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch. Now the Alter Rebbe quoted Tosafos, and he said according to Tosafos, even if you were not mevatel the chametz, you still can't burn it on Yom Tov, and he fears loss and yeah, and he fears loss, and holding it you still will not be over because you're an anus, because chachamim don't let you. So I want to say that this ones, now I'll explain in a moment, the fact that you're not over because you're an anus, will only fit according to Tosafos, if it's לך, as the Pri Chadash pas ket, and not if the ikar is מצוי. Now I'll explain what I mean. I want to say a little bit different pshat in the Alter Rebbe here, which I think is definitely right. Alter Rebbe says here, I'll read it again, that for holding the chametz on Pesach in this case, you will not be עובר. Why? Since you want to destroy it, since you want to, אלא חכמים מנעו, but the חכמים hold you back, הרי הוא אנוס, he's an anous. Forced. You're forced. Now, if I

would write the Shulchan Aruch, I would write differently. I would write that since you want to destroy it, חכמים don't let you, so you're an anous, and therefore ones rachmana patrei. That's the rule. Whenever there is an ones the Torah doesn't... Alter Rebbe adds these words: since you're an אנוס, ולא הזהירה תורה בבל יראה ובבל ימצא אלא בשיש בידו לבער. The Torah never gave a בל יראה to such a case. It's not like a regular ones. Regular ones means you're not allowed to be מחלל שבת, someone forced you to be מחלל שבת, you did the חילול שבת. There's a whole she'eilah in the אחרונים whether it means we're not מתייחס to... חילול שבת was done. The question is, you're an anous. He doesn't say you're an anous and therefore the בל יראה, בל ימצא that happens here is not your fault, is not something that we blame you. He says there is no בל יראה. The Torah never gave a בל יראה here. So he says clearly that the Torah's בל יראה is only made if you're able to be מבער. If you're not able to be מבער the Torah never בל יראה. Now, I want to say, again, you can have שפאנען in them, this, but like I always say, we're trying, trying to answer a kashya, explain something, not to, not to ask.

Now, we heard a some tape from the from the Rebbe the other day, you know, the שיחות פסקי... the the Vayakhel-Pekudei what's in Piskei Torah? The Rebbe gave a ביאור, and he said it's a dochak. Then he said In this case, it's not even a... So he says if it would be asking a kushya, so you could say, \"s'past nisht? I'm trying to ask a kushya.\" I'm trying to answer a teirutz. So a teirutz, you could say, in other words, if you say or if you'll destroy what I'm saying that is wrong, then you can't answer. But if you say, who says it's like that? Maybe it's different. The fact that this answers a kushya is a re'aya that it's right. I mean, it's a re'aya. So, what I'm trying to say is like this. This whole concept of this type of ones that you're not there's no aveira to begin with is only shayach by a halacha, not by a metziut. By a metziut, you can't say it's different. The Torah doesn't affect the metziut. The Torah could say There! The Torah could say that this metziut, disregard it. Don't care about it. אף על פי it's like this. The Torah can't say It's like the Rebbe said once by a farbrengen, the Rebbe spoke about other inyanim. He used the expression, I looked for it later, I don't remember which farbrengen, it's not printed anywhere, must be one of the הנחות or something. \"Torah,\" he said, \"is למעלה מן השכל.\" Torah is higher than Torah is not היפך השכל. Is that against seichel? Torah will never say one and one equals three. No such thing. \"איי, תורה is not dependent on שכל, תורה is not היפך השכל.\" Torah doesn't say on a metziut that it's not true and it didn't happen. It happened! It's a fact! The Torah could say that אף על פי כן ברוחניות it's there and all kinds of inyanim you could say, but Torah can't change a metziut. Not can't, that's not what Torah does. \"לך\" yours is a תורה'דיקע זאך, הלכה'דיקע זאך. It's here. Could be mine, could be The Torah says it's mine based on the conditions that I paid for it or I did something, it's mine. \"מצאו\" is not a halacha, it's a fact. This din that because you're an ones it has an effect that there is no בל יראה could only be if בל יראה is לך. So if בל יראה is לך, in this case, the Torah says it's not לך. But if בל יראה is based on מצאו, you can't say it's not. What you could say, אונס רחמנא פטריה. You could say it's not his fault, it's an ones, fine. Now, it

seems from here like this, that you could say from this angle, that the only reason Tosafos learns that you're מבטל that even if the chametz you were not מבטל, still you don't burn it, because Tosafos knew that sof kol sof, you won't have an aveirah of בל יראה. Because it turns out that there won't be בל יראה. Had there been in a way that you will be בל יראה, you won't be punished for it, whatever ones is, but if there will be a בל יראה, who says that the חכמים want to do that? The חכמים have a right to, they could go against the Torah, but not every time that they could do they if they want to. So you could say that this is one of the נקודות, this is a side point here. There are sevarot a lot that explain that it's all based on the מחלוקת on the real essential points of whether you're allowed to burn or not. But I want to say a different angle, that it's totally that length that end, that if your the whole reason Tosafos allowed themselves to say that the חכמים did not care to tell you to hold the chametz that you were not מבטל is only because the bottom line will be you will not be עובר בל יראה anyway. Mah she'ein ken, if you would be עובר בל יראה, who said who could say? So, that's what Rashi said. Rashi says, according to me, I couldn't say this sevara that because it's an אונס לא גזרו... What should I say there, it's the Torah is the same בל יראה, you have the same thing. און אין אן אמת, somebody... So,

according to Rashi, which you can't feel is this אויספיר, so according to Rashi, Rashi says that you have to burn it, Rashi and the Ran, because they go leshitasam of מצאו. Mah she'ein kein, according to Tosafot, Tosafot the ikar is לך. In a לך, which is not a metziut, which is a halachadik, so there you could say the halacha is not there, there's no לך, it's not yours. Torah could say it's not yours. So if it's not yours, you're takeh there is no Not that you're not over because you're an ones, there is no בל יראה. It's clear? So, this explains this. Based on this, only this sevara, only according to what I explained in Rashi, you could explain Abaye's sevara also. What is Abaye? Later on, Abaye says that if even if you plan to come back on Pesach, before Pesach, you don't have to destroy, you don't have to do anything. Only within 30 days, miderabbanan, but be'emet you don't have to. The question was why? Mimela, Rava is understood. Rava's reason is because there is a chiyuv before, anytime that you know that you have to prepare yourself to that to the chiyuv, you have to do it here. But what's Abaye's sevara? According to Rashi that the whole reason of בל יראה is מצאו, מצאו is a metziut. The whole issur is based on the metziut. That metziut doesn't exist now. All other things, the the the mitzvah doesn't exist. The metziut is there. There's no new metziut that will be בשעת מעשה then that will happen when the time comes. What will happen when Rosh Hashanah comes? You'll have to blow the shofar. Then, then the shofar... will become a shofar? Till then there is no shofar? There is a shofar. There is no חיוב. Any mitzvah like that. Here, the whole גדר of what chametz is will not be. If the whole גדר of chametz is לך, it's לך now also, but it's not אסור. But מצא is a מציאות, it has to be מצא by you on Pesach, the word is מצא. If chametz that's found to you on, by you on Pesach, so that מציאות is not here. For that there is no חיוב, according to Abaye, to do before. It's not exact, but similar to what the Rabbi

It's not exactly, but similar to what the Rebbe is מסביר in that sicha that I brought last time לגבי a קטן. Says that באמת any time before you have to prepare. But he says Why should but the preparation for the mitzvah the same as the mitzvah itself? There is like a No, you have to. The preparation itself. But that's only if the if the מציאות of the mitzvah is there. It's al derech he says by he's מחלק, by a קטן he says, before bar mitzvah there is no chiyuv to prepare yourself to the time of a mitzvah. So why? So he's מחלק. A different חילוק, but I'm bringing a דוגמא. He says the difference is by other things, even though it's not Pesach today yet, but I'm a bar chiyuva, I'm a A קטן is not in the category, he's not מחויב בכלל. And I tried to use that same logic, remember, then for for The Rebbe says that