Rav Simon Bava Basra Spring 2010 Final Bechina Notes

By Harry Portman

Please note that all errors/incomplete answers are mine and mine alone.

Bava Basra – Chezkas HaBatim

1) Give the source that is brought in the Gemara that Rav Nachman
holds “We put him there, we can take him out, and we’re not
concerned about zilusa d’bei dina.”

Bava Basrsa 31A-B - Machlokes between two guys over a piece land. One
guy had eidim for his chazaka and that his father owned it, the other guy just
had eidim for his chazaka. We award it to the first guy. Then the second guy
brings eidim that it was his father’s – so now they are tied.

2) Give the explanations of the Rashbam and Tosafos on the words in

“We put him there, we can take him out.

Rashbam (Bava Basra 31B) – originally no one there, and we awarded it to

the guy with 2 sets of eidim, and now that the 2nd guy tied, we take the 1st
guy out and declare “kol d’eilim gavar.”

Tosafos “anan achsinan lei anan maskinan lei” – Could learn either way
from the Gemara – the guy who lost was there first, so we put the other guy
there, and now we remove him and put in the original guy when he brings the
additional eidim. Or it could be that no one lived there, we installed the first
winner, and now we take him out and say “kol d’eilim gavar.”

3) Give the explanation of the Rambam and Rabbeinu Chananel on

“anan achsinan lei anan maskinan lei.”

Rambam (p.3) - originally no one there, and now the guy who won is put in
by Beis Din, and now that the 2nd guy tied with more eidim, we evict him and
say “kol d’eilim gavar.”

Rabbeinu Chananel via Ramban (p.4) learns a different pshat: one of

them was living there, and the other fellow brought both sets of eidim, so
evict the 1st guy and put the 2nd guy there. Now the 1st guy brings eidim for
his father’s ownership and we reinstate the 1st guy.

Rabbeinu Chananel then says on a theoretical level, if there was no original

guy there, and now we put someone in, and the 2nd guy ties the score with
 more eidim – we do NOT evict the 1st guy who won. We never take them out
unless someone was there first, because we need evidence to do so. Instead
we employ kol d’eilim gavar, which means beis din leaves the case as is.

4) Explain the words of the Yerushalmi in the understanding of the

sugya that each one says that the field belonged to his father.

Yerushalmi Bava Basra (p.4) – also like the Rabbeinu Chananel – someone
was there first, and it is up to the other guy to bring proof to take the land
from him.

5) Explain the differences in dinim between the sources of “two holding

onto a tallis” “A boat” and “the third maneh.”

Bava Metzia 2A (p.6) – two guys come to beis din holding onto a tallis,
claiming full ownership. Beis din makes each take a shavua that he owns no
less than half, and they split the tallis.

Bava Basra 34A (p.8) – Two guys are fighting over a boat, both claim full
ownership.

Bava Metzia 37A (p.7) – Two guys go on vacation, each deposits money
with a third guy as a pikadon, one gave $200 and one gave $100. Now then
they get back, both claim they gave the $200. Each gets $100, and the last
$100 is put aside until Eliyahu arrives to clarify ownership.

Tosafos “Yachloku” Bava Metzia 2A (p.6) – For “Shnayim Ochzin,” to

say yachloku, each needs to be ochzin – literally holding onto it. In the case of
case of “maneh shlishi,” it is as though both are holding on, since the shomer
is holding onto the pikadon for both of them as a representative – but the
problem is yachloku won’t be one of emes. You can’t give $150 to each,
because that’s not true, we know only one had the $200. So therefore yehei
munach. For “Hahu arbah” – could be they both own the boat, but since no
one is muchzak we say kol d’eilim gavar.
6) Give the source regarding the 2 shtaros that go out on the same day
and explain the words of the gemara “why don’t we say kol d’eilim
gava?”

Bava Basra 34A-B (P.8-9) - Two shtaros go out in the same day – now each
person has a shtar that says he were given this piece of land as a matana.
Who gets it? Rav says yachloku and Shmuel says try to figure out who the
original owner would have wanted to give the land to – who was his better
friend. The Gemara asks – why not say kol d’eilim gavar? Answer: by 2
shtaros, we’ll never know, they both have shtaros, doesn’t matter which was
given over first, we’ll never have a birur (clear conclusion). Beis din is not
going to get involved because they might be wrong if Eidim show up. Like
Rashbam – says it’s a din of siluk, because the even time listings on the
shtaros won’t count for anything.

7) What do the Rishonim argue about in the understanding of kol

d’eilim gavar, give the nafka mina l’dina between them.

Rashbam Bava Basra 35A – kol d’eilim gavar means that beis din steps
back and does not get involved. Eidim may show up later to clarify, and it
would look bad if beis did had to reverse.

Rosh (p.13) – Does not mean beis din just removes itself – rather, kol d’eilim
gavar is a psak din. Whoever moves in first and is tofeis, we consider it
legally his, he won. No tofeis back and forth.

Hagaos Maimoni (p.16) – kol d’eilim gavar is NOT a final psak, rather it is
ongoing and the 2nd guy who lost can come back and be tofeis it from the 1st
guy.

Pnei Shlomo (p.21) - this is dependent on what kol d’eilim gavar means,
could be psak like Rosh or it could be ongoing – tofeis back and forth.

Shittah Mekubetzes (p.15) – it’s a din, like the Rosh says.

8) What do the Tana Kama and Rebi Menachem b’Rebi Yossi argue
about when two say the husband died and two say the husband is
alive?"

Bava Basra 31A – Two eidim say the husband died, two say he didn’t. Tana
Kama says she shouldn’t get married, and if she marries, doesn’t have to
divorce. Rebi Menachem says if she marries she has to divorce, then he says
 it depends if she got married before the 2nd set of eidim who say the husband
is alive arrived yet or not. If not, she stays married, if she marries after they
give their testimony, then she has to get divorced.

9) Give the explanation of the Gemara in Kesubos regarding if she

marries does she have to get divorced.

Kesubos 22B, Bava Basra: Tosafos “V’im Niseis” – Gemara in Kesubos

says it depends if she marries one of the eidim and she says bari (she’s
certain) that her husband it dead. This opinion says that if she married after
the first eidim – the reason why she doesn’t get divorced is because of zilusa
d’bei dina.

10) What does Tosafos ask and answer on the words of the
Gemara “But one who gets married and afterwards the eidim
arrived, she does not get divorced?”
Tosafos asks – if her staying married is dependent on zilusa d’bei dina, it’s
not dependent on if the eidim got there first, but if beis din allows her to
marry because of zilusa d’bei dina. If she’s already married when they
arrived, she’s assur to the rest of the world because of that marriage, to
rescind the heter and make her assur to the one man she’s married to is
zilusa d’bei dina – it looks bad. But, if beis din is only rescinding the heter to
marry and she has not remarried yet, then at that moment they’re reverting
her to being assur to the world (which she already is, due to her first
marriage) so making ALSO assur to marry the eidim isn’t such a big deal.

11) Explain the words of the Gemara (31B) “v’lo hee, elah mishum
d’talia b’ashlei ravrivei.”

The Gemara says we do hold of zilusa d’bei dina, then it says that Rav
Nachman changed his mind and wasn’t choshesh for zilusa d’bei dina. The
Gemara says it’s not so pashut he’s wrong, since there are a bunch of big
rabbis who hold that we are not choshesh for zilusa d’bei dina

12) Explain the machlokes between Rabbi Elazar and Raban

Shimon ben Gamliel if we confirm a guy is a kohen by the testimony
of one witness – according to the Gemara’s conclusion.
 Bava Basra 31B-32A - A guy was muchzak that he was a kohen and his
father was a kohen – then kol that he wasn’t kosher, one eid says he was
kosher, 2 eidim say he wasn’t, and a 2nd lone eid says he was. The real
machlokes is can we mitzaref the two single eidim to reinstate him? Rabbi
Eliezer says no, the two eidim have to be in beis din together (like the
rabanan) ans Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says you can combine their edus
(like R’ Nasan).

13) Explain the Gemara in Kiddushin regarding the believability of

the midwife to say that this baby is a kohen in two ways.

Kiddushin 73B - A midwife who delivers babies is believed to say that this
one is a mamzer, this one a Levi, this one a Kohen. But if people challenge
her and say the baby is, for example, a mamzer, she is not believed. What
kind of opposition? If an eid echad comes mibachutz and says the baby is a
mamzer, she is believed to say the baby is NOT a mamzer – but that is only
when there is a chazaka that the baby is not a mamzer. If no chazaka, the eid
echad is believed. When there is a chazaka, you need two eidim to uproot it,
and then she won’t be believed.

14) What is Tosafos’ explanation regarding the matter of there is

no irur with less than two?

Tosafos “ain” Bava Basra 32A –a lone eid cannot cast aspersions, but a
kol can posul somone.

15) What does Tosafos ask on the Gemara (Bava Basra 32A) one
eid came and we reappoint, according to Gemara in Gittin (89A) that
we don’t mevatel a kol? What does Tosafos answer?

Tosafos “V’asa” - The case here is we have a chazaka that the guy is a
kohen, a kol says he is posul, and then eid echad comes and says he’s okay –
but Gemara in Gittin says we don’t mevatel a kol that says the wife of a
kohen is a gerusha (divorce woman) which means he gets divorced – yet here
we do mevatel the kol based on eid echad. There is a difference, if we say
she’s a gerusha, there is a way to fix it, since he can marry someone else.
But here, if we remove him from being a kohen, he’s posul forever, so
therefore we are mevatel. The other explanation is that we’re dealing with
Terumah D’rabanan, and can therefore by meikel (lenient).
16) Explain the words in the Gemara in Kiddushin (67A) regarding
Yanai HaMelech and “Vayivokeish v’lo nimtza.”

Yanai was a Chasmonayim king and a kohen. A kol came out that said maybe
his mother was captured by non-Jews and violated, became a zonah, and
thus unfit to be married to a kohen, hence Yanai isn’t a kohen (any child
produced from such a marriage is a chalal and not a kohen). They checked
and two eidim say she was in captivity and two eidim say that she wasn’t.

Tosafos suggests that we have 2 vs. 2, so they cancel and we rely on the
previous chazaka that she wasn’t captured, which would clear Yanai. Rashi
there says you can’t rely on the chazaka of the mother for her son, so she’s
ok, but Yanai is still suspect because they were asking about HIM not her.
The R”I doesn’t like this, because it’s not possible that the mother could be
kosher for the kehuna and her son be posul. Further, with Yanai’s mother
cleared, we could rely on the chazaka that his father was a kohen. But, the
R”I says that we learned in Daled Achin in Yevamos 31A that 2 vs. 2 is a
safek d’rabbanan, and thus his mother is a safek d’rabbanan. MiDe’oraisa,
two versus two reverts back to the original chazaka (she’s good), but there
may still be a reason to say she’s posul mid’rabbanan. However, we say since
we’re dealing with a Terumah d’rabbanan, so we’re meikel and allow him to
rely on his chazaka.

17) Explain the din of two vs. two in the Gemara regarding
promoting someone to the Kehuna. What does Tosafos ask and
answer on this?

Tosafos Bava Basra 32A “Anan” - It’s two against two, s’feika derabbanan
– don’t follow the chazaka (whereas MiDe’oraisa you would). Tosafos answers
– over here the only issue is Terumah d’rabbanan, so we don’t follow the
chumra of sefaika derabbanan, and keep him as a kohen. If the issue was
Deoraisa, we’d be machmir, since it isn’t, we’re meikel.

18) Explain the question of Tosafos regarding trei u’trei related to

“her husband died.” What does Tosafos answer?

Trei and trei creates a sefaika de’rabanan, only lekula not lechumra, but we
should remain with the chazaka that’s she’s an eishes ish with her 1st
husband, so how can she get remarried to one of the eidim?
 Rabbeinu Tam says there is a counter chazaka – that isha daika umenasba
(she checkes into it and gets married) – because of the severity of what
might happen to future children (will be mamzerim) women check very well
to make sure a 1st husband is dead before they remarry. This 2nd chazaka
weakens the first (that she’s an eishes ish).

19) What does Tosafos ask on the din of “two say her husband
died and two say her husband did not die” from the din of “trei
u’trei sefaika d’rabanan?” What does Tosafos answer on this?

But you might think that since there are eidim here she might not check as
much as she would have it there was only one eid, especially since in this
case, if she remarries without reshus, she can go back to her first husband.
However, that only applies when she simply has eidim, when those eidim are
huchchash, as they are here, then she no longer has that license to return,
and thus will properly check to make certain her 1st husband is, in fact, dead.
She has to worry about the possibility that in the future that husband could
walk in the door.

20) What does Tosafos ask about the din of 2 eidim say she was
divorced and 2 eidim say she wasn’t divorced from the din of 2 vs. 2
is sefeika derabbanan?

The woman doesn’t have the same believability in this case, because there
isn’t the possibility that her thought-to-be-dead husband may show up and
thus totally contradict her. Also, she can be very brazen when her husband is
not around, even more so when she has eidim backing her up that say she
was divorced. However, she will be concerned that these eidim will be found
out to be zomemin or become posul b’gazlanusa, so she will be careful to
check.

21) What does Tosafos ask on the words in the Gemara in Kesubos
(22B) that you said she herself is dependent on the fulfillment of an
Asham Talui?

The Gemara in Kesubos says that anyone who is with her is chayiv an Asham
Talui. But it shouldn’t be an Asham Talui, rather a Real Chatas – her chazaka
is that she’s a married woman! It’s a definite, not doubtful sin. That’s if you
hold trei-u-trei safek deoraisa. She can only remain married if she marries
one of the eidim and says “bari li” that she believes her husband is dead. In
the end, we hold safek trei u’trei is derabbanan.
22) What do the Tana Kama and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha argue
about in the matter of joining eidim for monetary cases?

Can we metzaref these two eidim who didn’t come together to beis din? The
Gemara quotes Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha – hoda’af achar hoda’a
counts – even two different days can be metztarfin. In order to be mechayev
someone mammon, can see two different stories, each saying he owes $100
– we join their testimony together. Tana Kama says no – need eidim to be on
the same case.

23) Give the overall picture for Eidus Meyuchedes.What’s the din
for Eidus Meyuchedes regarding monetary cases and regarding
capital cases?

Makkos (6B) – a case of two eidim seeing the same occurrence from two
separate windows. The gemara makes a chiluk between mammanos and
nefashos. Mammanos – it’s good. But for nefashos not good – lo yumsu al pi
eid echad – if you need two, of course one is not good – it means echad
echad – one in each window, but didn’t see each other – that’s good for
mammanos and not nefashos.

24) What do the Rishonim ask ion the din of Eidus Meyuchedes
(Makkos 6B) from the words of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Karcha Ha nira
li? What do they answer from this? What is the chiddush that comes
out of this din?

If you hold like Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha, that you don’t have to see the
same ma’aseh, so what’s Rav Nachman’s chiddush here that echad mechalon
zeh v’echad mechalon zeh is good?

Ritva (p.5-6) and Ramban (p.7) - een hachi name, this gemara isn’t
according to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha because that’s pashut.

Ra’avad (p.5) - this is even according to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha – can
join them together to posul them. If one turns out to be posul l’eidus, then
the whole collective group is thrown out.

Ritva (5-6) - that doesn’t make sense, the gemara speaks about joining
l’hechshair.

Ketzos (p.8)– the mere fact that the two independent eidim come to beis din
on the same monetary case case, though not together, causes their claims to
 be filed away in Beis Din’s computer, and can therefore be joined. So if you
had a case of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha and echad echad or shnaim echad
– then nimtza echad mayham karov or posul – they’re all posul. The Ketzos
claims he was mechavayn to the Ra’avad.

Shut Achiezer (p.7) – The Ketzos was NOT mechavayn to the Ra’avad.
The Ra’avad only says that when the independent eidim are testifying on the
same case, see the same ma’aseh, but NOT in the case of Rabbi Yehoshua
ben Karcha.

25) What are the doubts that the Tumim has regarding Eidus
Meyuchedes in monetary cases? Explain. Give the explanation of the
Ra’avan on this.

Tumin (p.11)- Is it a din deorasa or din derabbanan? Tumim has a safek

and isn’t sure – maybe it’s a din derabbanan we know we’re more maykil by
dinei mammanos because people won’t lend money IE: someone lends lend
money, the other guy will deny he ever borrowed it, give him such a hard
time on the eidim, becomes a problem, so they took away the requirement
for drisha v’chakira by mammanos. Or is it a din deoraisa, eidus meyuchedes
is enough to establish that we know the loan happaned, nothing to do with
the door being closed on loans.

Ra’avan (15) – says b’feirush that it’s a din derabbanan – not to have the
door closed on loans.

26) Explain the matter of Eidus Meyuchedes related to putting

someone in the kipa.

Sanhedrin 81B (p.18) – Mishna: We know someone is a murderer, but have

no eidim. Do kipa, he drops dead. Gemara: If we don’t have eidim, how do we
know he did it? We have eidus meyuchedes.

Rashi (p.18) says – The case is that they each saw him from a different
window, not like Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha.

Rambam (p.17) says it’s like Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha – full birur, even if
only one eid on each case. Just special din need two eidim together to do
normal misas beis din.

Beis Halevi (p.20) – Why does Rashi not explain the Gemara according to
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha, like the Rambam? Seemingly because there is a
lack of birur. Actually, Rashi does hold the Rambam and also holds like Rabbi
 Yehoshua ben Karcha. The reason he didn’t explain this Gemara that way is
because this Gemara is like Rav, who doesn’t hold like Rabbi Yehoshua ben
Karcha in Sanhedrin. Beis HaLevi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha’s
opinion is really a birur gamur, but we have the gezeras hakasuv that we
need two eidim for capital cases. Since kipa is already a shelo-kedin means of
giving punishment, we can rely on R’ Yehoshua ben Karcha.

27) What’s the din if a woman was mekadesh in front of an eid

echad in the morning and then again in front of an eid echad in the
evening according to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha? Explain.

Tosefta (p.21) – Two eidim see a divorced couple seclude themselves –

she’d need a 2nd get, presumably got back together. If 1 eid sees them
seclude themselves, does not need a 2nd get. What about one eid sees them
seclude themselves in the morning and 1 eid in the afternoon? Rabbi Elazar
ben Todai asked the chachamim who said – they are like one eid – doesn’t
count.

Yad Rama (p.22) Says eidus miyuchedes is not good by kiddushin. You
need 2 eidim, even if they do kiddushin in front of one eid echad and then do
kiddushin right afterward in front of another eid echad, we do not follow
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha for this – his shittah only works for monetary
cases.

Ran (p.23) says this is considered a case of nefashos – since a woman is

married and is mezaneh gets capital punishment. We only follow zeh achar
zeh, etc for monetary cases.

Yerushalmi Sota (p.24)– stira – warns her not to seclude with a certain
man – and she violates it at 2 different times in front of an eid echad – does
that count as good eidus on the stira? Quotes the Tosefta to try and verify it,
because the Tosefta says it isn’t good for kiddushin.

Beis Yosef (p.25)– do we hold like Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha, or do we

say Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha is only by mammanos and wouldn’t work
here? The only reason it doesn’t work by kiddushin – if no two eidim by the
nesinas hakiddushin – we assume the man and woman weren’t serious.
That’s the safek nafka mina whether it will be good by stira.

Rabbi Akiva Eiger asks a question in the Ran – if mekadesh in front of eid
echad in the morning and again in the afternoon – why say nefashos, just say
that it isn’t a kiyum of kiddushin, since to have a proper kiddushin take effect
you need 2 eidim to see him give the ring.
 Shut Maharit (p.27-28) the case in the Ran when he says it’s no good – an
eid echad says she was mekadesh in front of 2 eidim in the morning and
another eid echad says she was mekadesh in front of 2 eidim in the
afternoon. Do we mitzaref these two lone eidim like Rabbi Yehoshua ben
Karcha or not? Definitely no good because they are two separate acts of
kiddushin.

28) Give the source for eidus by Kiddushin. Explain.

Kiddushing 65A - Hoda’as ba’al din doesn’t count when there is chav
l’achrini (the other’s relatives are no longer mutar to them), since this affects
other people, need eidim.

Shiurei Halacha

1) Explain the diyuk in the poskim regarding Chamalim(?) on the 1st

and 7th days of Pesach.

Shemos 12:15-16 - Eating chametz on pesach – it says yom harishon and

yom hashevi’i. No vav in rishon, no yud in shevi’i, then next posuk written
malei with both.

Sefer Ohel Moshe – maybe can say very simply – that by chametz it’s
referring to kareis, there’s no kareis by tosefes, so no vav and yud rishon and
shevi’I, to show no kareis bzman tosefes. The other is mikra’ei kodesh, that
implies tosefes. Then quotes R’ Elazar Moshe Horowitz – tosefes only
applies to something that is a yom tov-dik or Shabbos-dik thing, but not chol
hamoed, doesn’t apply. Yet, Issur chametz applies to chol hamoed as well.
Quotes that by mikra’ei kodesh, that’s a special din by 1st and 7th day, no
tosefes at all. When you have the mitzvah of tosefes yom tov, specially
applies to issur melacha not to eating chametz on tosfes shabbos.

Magen Avraham – eating seudas hamashiach on 8th day of pesach and go

into the night, can eat chametz at the meal.

Shulchan Aruch HaR av – what about the mitzvah of tosefes, the mitzvah
of tosefes doesn’t apply, have issur of kol ____ also, that’s why it’s chaseir,
says the Magen Avraham quotes this. Nothing to do with havdallah,
mitzvah of tosefes, also din d’rabbanan not to do melacha until say baruch
hamavdil and make havdallah in tefillah – even if gets dark and haven’t said
havdallah, still goes on as Yom Tov, but nothing to do with chametz since
that has nothing to do with kedushas hayom.
2) Explain the shita of the Magen Avraham for one who eats a
seuudah at the end of Pesach if it is mutar to eat chametz at the
end of the seudah after tzeis hakochavim.

Sefer Shai – have to benstsch first – otherwise it’s tartei d’sasrei – can’t eat
chametz and say ya’aleh v’yavo. Well if you bentsch, then can’t eat until
after ma’ariv. Maybe water shel chametz – that doesn’t make sense, it’s
talking about during the seudah.

3) Explain the shita of the Rambam regarding the relevancy of

tosefes Shabbos

ushering in the Shabbos and ushering out the Shabbos.

Rambam –Yom Tov – for Yom Kippur only by the inuyim, not by Shabbos at
all. What about being mekabel Shabbos early, make Kiddush, and even eat
the seudah mibod yom? Kiddush doesn’t have to be on shabbos, rather
somech l’shabbos, technically not Shabbos yet, but can make Kiddush and
eat seudah.

Rav Abadi – parallel to Rabbeinu Yona on eating on erev Yom Kippur –

eating as a kapara and also eating as the seudah of yom kippur – so as long
as it is in conjunction with Shabbos.

4) Drinking water before Kiddush

Rambam – that’s okay.

Rashba – can’t even drink water. Gets into the Yerushalmi.

Shulchan Aruch HaRav – Because Kiddush is supposed to be right away,

you don’t wait for Kiddush. Mashul – king is waiting in the waiting room, you
don’t make him wait for 2 hours, welcome him in right away. As soon as
shekiyah comes make Kiddush right away, don’t want anything to come
before, even water, which is normally mutar, even in the morning before
Shacharis.

Hence it is a chiddush that we say Shalom Aleichem, Aishes Chayil, etc.

Pattern Shabbos day after Shabbos night.
5) Can you rely on the shitta of the Geonim for Kiddush b’makom
seudah on the night of Shabbos and Yom Tov. Explain.

Machlokes Rambam and Raavad – can eat before say borei pri hagofen –
Rambam says it’s assur and Raavad says no, it’s just a din to be koveya
seuda al hayayin.

The Rav – the only reason we’re maykil in the day time, perhaps can eat
without Kiddush, like the Ra’avad said and perhaps cake counts, but at night
cake doesn’t count. But le’ma’aisa the Shulchan Aruch doesn’t say.

6) Give the explanation of the Ohr HaChayim HaKadosh on the posuk

“V’shomru Bnei Yisrael es HaShabbos, etc.”

Ohr Hachayim – v’shamru – like the Rambam writes, should be eagerly

waiting for Shabbos, dressed.

Noam Elimelech – once Friday morning comes, should already be getting

ready.

7) What aveiros posul a kohen from duchaning and what sinces

don’t posul him?

Berachos (p.1) - Kohen who commits murder can’t duchan.

Rambam (p.5) – if he kills, even if he did teshuva, some have the girsa,
even b’shogeg. Also, if he worships avoda zara or converts to another
religion. All other aveiros don’t affect this.

Hagaos Maimoni (p.5) – Only if he continues to kill, not just killed once. A
kohen mohel who has a baby die from the milah he performed DOES duchan.

Menachos 109B (p.3) - Beis Chonyo – was it avoda zara or stam shochtei
chutz – Gemara says anyone who sacrificed there can’t sacrifice in the Beis
Hamikdash. Rishonim there say kal v’chomer if they sacrifice to avodah zara
can’t duchan.

Yerushalmi Gittin (p.9) – guy says, I don’t want a bracha from this ba’al
aveira, and HaShem says don’t worry I will bless you. Though Megalei arayos
and avoda zara are included as well – but this is talking about rumors.

Shulchan Aruch (p.14) – If a kohen kills, even b’shogeg, even if he did

teshuva – can’t duchan.
Rama (p.14)– is meikel if he did teshuva.

Pri Chadash (p.20)– if forced to kill someone b’ones, can still duchan – not a
murderer at all, even different from Shogeg.

Rav Ovadia Yosef (p.24) – hence IDF soldiers can still duchan.

Shulchan Aruch (p.14) – mumar does not duchan.

Mishna Berura (p.?) – mumar does not duchan – if he goes to another

religion. But other for aveiros it is mutar for him to duchan. Avodah Zara and
Shevichas Damim, but not medakdeik in other mitvos, even arayos, ok.
Certainly any kohen related aveiros – marry a gerusha, become tamei
b’mayzid – prevent him from duchaning.

8) Explain the limitations of Shabbos violators related to duchaning

and kol haTorah kulah.

Rambam (p.1) - Mechalel Shabbos in public – like one who worships avodah
Zara.

Igros Moshe (p.16-17) – not literal, if does teshuva he’s okay. Has to be
b’farhesiya.

Ba’al Ha’Itur (p.4) – davka avodas karkah, some say deoraisas, or deoraisa
is meant by avodas karkah. Some say it meant avodas karkah outside the
techum. Or perhaps that’s a scribal error, should say “kosher for inyan
kiddushin.” Some want to say the girsa is “ella avodas karkah.”

Bach (p.6) – not only have to know something is assur, but have to know
that it posuls you l’eidus in order to be posul l’eidus.

Bnai Tzion (18-19) – today tinok shenishba

Eliyahu Raba (p.23) – if you would be embarrassed to see the Rabbi

walking while driving, not considered befarhesiya, need to be brazen enough
to be mechalel Shabbos in front of anyone.

Igros Moshe (p.16-17)– someone who violates Shabbos is called a kofer,

but if he’s going to shul, making Kiddush etc – that’s not kofer – this a big
chiddush. Pashut pshat, the fact that you are mechalel shabbos is a ma’aseh
kefira. Hashkama minyan – used to be for mechaleli Shabbos – daven and
then go to work.
 Inyanei D’yoma

1) Explain the din “Ain maftirin achar hePesach Afikoman.”

One of the pshatim in the gemara, can’t eat after the korban pesach. Why
not?

Parshas Bo (p.1) – Eat the Korban Pesach at night.

Mechilta (p.3) – eat it al hasova (when you’re already full). Hence Korban
Chagigah to fill up on.

Yerushalmi (p.9) – gezeira, because if you eat it while hungry, you might
come to break the bones to get at the marrow.

Ba’al Hamaor (p.18)– since you eat the korban pesach on the ground floor
and said the hallel on the roof to make more room, so memayla.

Ramban (p.18) didn’t like the Ba’al Hamaor who said it was din of Hallel. He
felt there was more to that.

2) Should you eat the Korban pesach at the beginning of the meal,
or at the end?

Pesachim 114 (p.4) – Eat Korban Pesach at the beginning of the meal.

Pesachim 119B (p.6) - Two Mishnayos – one speaks about eating the
Korban Pesach before, one after.

Maharam Chalava (p.15) – eat it twice, once at the beginning of the meal,
but also at the end.

Rambam (13) – writes like this.

Other Rishonim hold that there is no eating at the end of the meal.

3) Explain the reason that we eat matza at the end of the seuda
nowadays.

We eat matza at the end of the meal today, machlokes Rishonim what that
signifies.

Zecher l’Korban Pesach, or Zecher l’matza shene’echal b’Korban Pesach.

Rosh (p.10) – it’s zecher l’Pesach – the Korban Pesach itself.

Rashbam (p.6) – zecher l’matza shene’echal baPesach – the matza eaten

WITH the Korban Pesach, not the Korban Pesach itself.

Maharal (p. 19) – none of the above, it’s just a separate halacha that the
taste of matza should remain in your mouth.

Rambam (p.11) – midivrei sofrim, don’t eat anything after the mazta of
afikoman, and if you eat more, you must finish with more matza.

Ohr V’simcha (22-3) – What is the idea of not eating anything after the
afikoman? Explains the Rambam – there is no separate halacha to eat
afikoman, bzman hamikdash had to eat the Korban Pesach to go away with
that taste to showcase the Korban Peach. But today, matza is the main thing.
If you had matza during the meal, would be ok, but we eat it again to
showcase the matza by having the taste in our mouthes – quoting the
Maharal’s vort in the Rambam.

4) Should there be an issur to eat after the afikomen nowadays?

Machlokes in the Gemara – ain mafitirin achar hamatza.

Some Rishonim say, can’t eat anything and for drinking the only thing
prohibited is things that make you drunk.

Pri Chadash (p.29) says – don’t drink intoxicating beverages afterward.

Chazon Ovadiah (Rav Ovadia Yosef, p.33) – teshuva says you can drink
coffee, tea etc, after chatzos.

5) How does the Avnei Nezer explain the din of not eating aftet the
afikoman and what is The Avnei Nezer’s tanai?

Avnei Nezer (p.31-2) – Rav Abadi is like this also – machlokes if zman
achilah is until midnight or until morning. If until midnight, then can eat
food after midnight. Not eating anything after chatzos preserves the flavor
in your mouth after midnight, learning it from makas bechoros.

Hence famous tenai of the Avnei Nezer – if running late, go ahead and eat
matza l’shem afikoman, and wait until after chatzos. Then can eat
 afterward and say if the zman is until morning, the actual afikoman counts
then.

6) Explain the matter of the yom tov of Pesach as a zman bechiras

klal Yisrael and specifically the 1st and 7th days.

By makkas bechoros, hama’avir banav, chosen as a son. Shevi’I shel pesach.

Ikkar is rishon and shevi’I, chosen as son. Pesach is zman bachartanu.

Rashi from R’Moshe Hadarshan – 7th day of Pesach tekuma of tzitzis.

R’ Shlomo Fischel wants to say – the 8th day is kneged the techeilis, the
closest to HaShem, hence chosen nation.

7) Should the Korban Pesach be eaten on the roofs and second

stories, or just on the ground of Yerushalayim?

Normal the roofs and second stories were not mekadshin. The problem is,
Tosafos says in Makkos that in Ma’aser Sheini, can eat Ma’aser in
Yerushalayim. Kodshei Kodshim has to be on the ground in the Azara, but
Kodshim kalim can be in a tree. Rashba in a teshuva says the same thing.
That’s why in the upstairs in Yerushalyim, can eat kodshim kalim eaten on 2nd
floor. So why does Korbn Pesach have to be eaten on the ground? Because
of special din, “makom asher yivchar HaShem” – and that is Yerishalayim.

Rambam says – special lav of don’t let the Korban Pesach leave your gates –
lav shechutei chutz, special lav here. Even though no issur bamos, still assur
to have the Korban Pesach outside Yerushalayim. So memayleh, the idea of
the yom tov is asher bachar banu, so the korban is stronger than every
korban. Can’t eat on 2nd floor, it’s tahor, etc – but not “makom asher yivchar
HaShem.”