Translate

17.3.17

leaven on Passover

I do not have any great ideas today but I just wanted to make  a note to remind myself to think about a few issues. At least of i write them down I might remember them.
The first issue is leaven on Passover. The question is דברים שבלב אינם דברים. "Things in the heart are not things." This I asked on Bitul Hametz (the formula of nullification of leaven) done the day before Passover. It occurred to me that Tosphot somewhere in Ketuboth goes into this in detail, and from what I recall he says we only say this when the things in the heart are contradicted by the words in one's mouth. So that answers that question. That Tosphot is somewhere in the middle of Ketubot and I forgot the page #.

The other issue is Tosphot's opinion that Bitul {nullifying }is valid because of hefker and the Ran also brings this. I asked about the Gemara in Pesachim 93-95 that says לא יראה ולא ימצא (there hall not be seen nor found any leaven) is a לאו הניתק לעשה (negative command that can be corrected by a positive action).
The answer is implicit in the question. That is probably the very reason for Tosphot. That is--Bitul is not the עשה (positive command) But rather פורר וזורה לרוח (throw the leaven out to the wind) after the time it is forbidden.

Another issue is the fact that Rav Shach noticed in the Rambam that the Rambam makes a clear distinction between Biur chametz and bitul Chametz which is an astounding observation. The implications are vast. That means that when the sages and R. Yehuda disagree about biur chametz that means they are disagreeing about after the sixth hour on the day before Passover.
Thus before 6th hour the things to do are either bitul or "hashbata" to make the leaven rest. And after the 6th hour the only thing to do is "biur." So R. Yehuda does say to burn the leaven before the 6th because of hashbata and after the 6th because of biur. And the ages say before and after to get rid of it in any fashion. And R. Yehud agrees to get rid of the leaven after teh 6th hour in any fashion but because of the special verse about notar he adds a mitzvah to o it by burning.




Someone had the grace and kindness to send to me two volumes of Rav Shach's Avi Ezri. [One of which I already lost]. But in the one I still have there is an answer to a question I asked on the Rambam in the little book of Ideas in  Bava Metzia. His answer I read only quickly but I think he divides שכירות (renting) into different kinds of categories. But as I was reading it a different kind of answer occurred to me.  This is in Bava Metzia in ch. 8 about the זבל שבחצר (garbage in the coutyard) where the Rambam says the exact opposite of what it says in the Gemara. [That is pretty common in the Rambam but still each case has to be considered.] There  we have that the זבל (garbage) belongs to the שוכר (renter) if the animals belong to him. But if they are animals of others then to whom does the  זבל (garbage) belongs to? That is where the Rambam and the Gemara seem to disagree. But it occurred to me the Rambam is not talking about fertilizer but rather straight forward garbage that needs to be taken out of the courtyard and that he he says is the responsibility of the משכיר (owner). That is not the question of the Gemara about to who does the fertilizer in the courtyard belong and that the Gemara says goes to the renter. But why would there be this difference?

I had a few more thoughts that I already forgot.

__________________________________________________
ביטול חמץ. The question is דברים שבלב אינם דברים.  This is a question on nullification of leaven done the day before Passover. Answer:  תוספות somewhere in כתובות says we only say this the things in the heart are contradicted by the words in one's mouth of by one's actions. So that answers that question. The other issue is the opinion of  תוספות  that nullifying is valid because of הפקר and the ר''ן also brings this. I asked about the גמרא in פסחים דף צ''ג that says לא יראה ולא ימצא  is a לאו הניתק לעשה. The answer is implicit in the question. That is probably the very reason for תוספות. That is ביטול is not the עשה. But rather פורר וזורה לרוח after the time it is forbidden. This is in בבא מציעא  about the זבל שבחצרת garbage in the courtyard, where the רמב''ם says the exact opposite of what it says in the גמרא. There  we have that the זבל garbage belongs to the שוכר if the animals belong to him. But if they are animals of others then to whom does the זבל garbage belongs to? That is where the רמב''ם and the גמרא seem to disagree. The answer of  רב שך is to divide שכירות  into different kinds of categories. A different kind of answer occurred to me. But it occurred to me the רמב''ם is not talking about fertilizer but rather  garbage that needs to be taken out of the courtyard and that he he says is the responsibility of the משכיר . That is not the question of the גמרא about to who does the fertilizer in the courtyard belong to? The גמרא says that goes to the שוכר. But why would there be this difference?

ביטול חמץ. השאלה היא דברים שבלב אינם דברים. זוהי שאלה על ביטול חמץ דנעשה יום לפני פסח. תשובה: תוספות איפשהו בכתובות אומר שאנחנו רק אומרים את זה אם הדברים בלב הם סותרו על ידי המילים בפה של אחד או על ידי פעולות שלו. אז זה עונה על השאלה הזאת. הנושא השני הוא על דעתו של  תוספות ביטול חמץ (שמְבַטֵל את החמץ)  תקף בגלל הפקר (ואת ר''ן גם מביא את זה). שאלתי היא מן הגמרא בפסחים דף צ''ג שאומרת לא יראה ולא ימצא הוא לאו הניתק לעשה. התשובה היא מובלעת בעצם השאלה. זו כנראה הסיבה עבור תוספות. כלומר ביטול אינו עשה. אלא פורר וזורה לרוח. 

 בבבא מציעא על האשפה שבחצר (זבל בחצר), שבו רמב''ם אומר את ההיפך הגמור ממה שכתוב בגמרא. יש לנו כי אשפת הזבל שייכת לשוכר אם החיות שייכות לו. אבל אם הם חיות של אחרים אז למי  הזבל שייך? זה מקום שבו רמב''ם ואת הגמרא נראים שלא מסכימים. התשובה של רב שך היא לחלק שכירות לתוך סוגים שונים של קטגוריות. סוג שונה של תשובה עלה על דעתי.  אבל זה עלה לי את שהרמב''ם אינו מדבר על דשן אלא אשפה שצריכה להילקח מחוץ לחצר ושהוא באחריות המשכירה. זה לא השאלה של הגמרא עומד למי הדשן בחצר שייכת? הגמרא אומרת שזה שהולך לשוכר. אבל מדוע צריך להיות ההבדל הזה

Another issue is just remembered is גוללין. That is also I think not a very big deal but still I think worth writing. That is the Rambam holds for שומרים there is a שבוע that the שומר was not פושע. That applies even in a case where there is not usually a שבוע Like עבדים קרקעות ושטרות. The Raavad disagrees with this but he does say that there is a שבוע that the guarded object is not ברשותו. Therefore I ask why not say גוללין? If the שומר has to take an oath that he was not פושע or it is not ברשותו then why not add the other things that normally the שומר would not take an oath for. That is עבדים קרקעות ושטרות let him swear they were  lost by גניבה או אבידה? The answer I think is that that is the very reason for the law in itself that one takes no oath in those cases to tell us that in itself that you do not do גוללין