Pesachim 97 - 103
פסחים צ“ז - ק“ג
From the Desk of Rabbi Yaakov Fisch
Much of Talmud’s study centers around the halachic debates that have little relevance in our daily lives. It is a special treat when we immerse ourselves in Talmud study that features Jewish life cycle hallmarks. We began the tenth and final chapter of Pesachim this week, which addresses many halachic issues of kiddush and havdalah. There are a couple of scenarios that were relevant this year according to the way our calendar worked out. Last week we celebrated Purim on Friday. Some people had their Purim Seuda later in the day and pretty close to Shabbos. The Gemara suggests a method of combining the Purim meal on Friday with the Shabbos meal. This is by putting a new tablecloth on and making kiddush. This is referred to as פורס מפה ומקדש. While this practice is not necessarily the best halachic conclusion, it is an interesting alternative that we learn from our studies. Another example that comes up this year is the convergence of Shabbos’ end with Yom Tov’s onset. It’s a merging of Kiddush and Havdallah together that is referred to as יקנה”ז. These are just two samples of a large collection of much large discussion. As someone once said, ‘the water is warm now. Come jump in!”
Have a Peaceful Shabbos,
Rabbi Yaakov Fisch
Pesachim 97
A Pesach offering must be from a lamb that is a male who is a year old. The Mishna states that if one designated a female or a two-year-old male as the Pesach offering, it could not be a valid Pesach. On the other hand, we cannot say that it is totally unconsecrated. The Mishna suggests that we let the animal graze in the fields until it incurs a natural blemish. Once that occurs, it becomes disqualified from being a korban, and we sell the animal. We take the funds from the sale and apply those funds for s future Shelamim sacrifice. The case of the Mishna was a situation when one designated an animal for the Pesach, but it was disqualified from the moment it was designated due to the criteria. A question is would that apply to any designation for the Pesach that that was invalid and would that be invalid from the start? For example, if one declared that he wanted this bird or even this flour to be a Pesach offering.
Would we say it’s invalid for the Pesach offering, but it nonetheless cannot be treated as unconsecrated and must be sold, and the funds must be used for a future sacrifice or not? This is debated among the Acharonim. According to the Tevuos Shor, it must be treated not only as a consecrated item but as קדושת הגוף. Other Acharonim dismiss this argument and say that specifically, our Mishna is when you designated an animal for the Pesach while it was invalid. It was at least in the realm of options. If one designates a bird or flour, it is so out of the realm, it does not register at all for consecration.
Pesachim 98
The Gemara introduces us to the concept of דחוי. The basic understanding of דחוי is that once a consecrated animal has become disqualified for whatever reason it cannot become reinstated at a later time even if the circumstances change in a favorable way. The chiddush of our sugya is that the concept of דחוי will apply even prior to the shechita of the animal. That is because some argue and say that the notion of דחוי is only applicable once it has been slaughtered and is on the way to the altar. A question that is asked is what is the reason for the disqualification of דחוי? The Shoel U’meishiv says it is rooted in the issue of היסח הדעת. This means that one always has to have the sacrifice in
mind and not be distracted by other things. The concern is that once the Pesach became disqualified there was a degree of היסח הדעת. Even if the circumstances change at a later time, the disqualifying issue of היסח הדעת would permanently affect the status of this korban. The Brisker Rav disagrees with this assertion and says that the issue of דחוי does not trigger היסח הדעת. The reason is that היסח הדעת is an intrinsic disqualification and he argues that דחוי does not reach that threshold. Another approach is that of the Aruch L’ner who says that the reason of דחוי is that is a permanent disqualification because of a Halacha L’Moshe M’sinai.
Pesachim 99
The opening Mishna emphasizes the importance of drinking the Four Cups on Pesach night. Even a poor man that is subject to public welfare must still receive enough from the “soup kitchen” for the Four Cups. Tosfos points out from the language of ולא יפחתו לו (in the singular tense) that there is only an only an obligation to provide the poor man with the Four Cups but not any of his family members. This is because the individual can have the rest of his family in mind as he is fulfilling the Four Cups. Tosfos ultimately concludes that one should be stringent and have Four Cups for every individual of the family as it would not be sufficient to have the head of the household have the rest of the family in mind. The Maharal objects to the original assertion of Tosfos that the head of the household would be able to have the whole family in mind for the four cups. Would there be a similar thought regarding Matzo or Maror — that the household head can eat the item and the rest of the family can fulfill the Mitzvah??? Of course not!! So why should the Four Cups be any different? The Brisker Rav proves from
here that the position of Tosfos is that main thrust of the Mitzvah of the Four Cups is not to drink the wine but rather to anchor the cup of of wine and its accompanying blessings to the Mitzvah of recounting the retelling the story of the Exodus (סיפור יציאת מצרים). The Brisker Rav argues that Tosfos is consistent with his position as he maintains it is sufficient for an individual for an individual not to drink a רביעית (a quarter log i.e., at least 3.5 fl oz.) but rather just a cheekful. This is sufficient because the main thrust of the Mitzvah is not drinking. However, the Rambam and the Ramban argue that it is not sufficient for one to drink a cheekful of wine which is otherwise known as a מלא לוגמיו. The Brisker Rav explains because these other Rishonim fundamentally disagree with Tosfos and say that it is not about the anchoring the Four Cups to the retelling of the Exodus. Still, rather it is an independent mitzvah to drink the wine, not unlike the Mitzvah to eat the Matzo and Maror, and you cannot have someone else eat or drink that on behalf of yourself for you.
Pesachim 100
There is a longstanding practice that originated in the Talmud of making in shul on Friday night at the conclusion of davening. The question that is debated in the Talmud is if one must repeat Kiddush at home. The heart of the issue is whether the Kiddush at shul counts as a real kiddush since it wasn’t accompanied by any meal. A meal doesn’t necessarily mean there must be Hamotzi recited with bread but rather just eating something that would require Mezonos in most cases would be sufficient. The requirement to have a meal accompanying your seuda is called קידוש במקום סעודה. The Rashbam provides two reasons why קידוש אלא במקום סעודה is required. The first reason is learned out of a well known verse in Tanach in Yeshaya 58, וְקָרָאתָ לַשַּׁבָּת עֹנֶג. One can only call out to Kiddush if there is an oneg. This is interpreted as there is only Kiddush if there is a meal. Hence the term, קידוש במקום סעודה. The Rashbam offers another reason that קידוש במקום סעודה is required. He says that since that Kiddush is required on wine, one must make the Kiddush at the most significant part of when the wine will be offered and that is the at the meal. The Pri Megadim offers a scenario
that would be a difference between the two reasons of the Rashbam. If one does not have wine or grape juice available, he may make Kiddush on bread. The question is, if he is making Kiddush on bread, does he have to an accompanying meal or not? Well, it depends according to the previously quoted two reasons of the Rashbam. According to the first reason of the Rashbam, one must call out for Kiddush in the place of oneg. It would seem that it should not matter if one is making Kiddush on wine or bread, one would still have to have an accompanying meal. However, according to the second reason of the Rashbam the reason of קידוש במקום סעודה is strictly related to wine. When one partakes of one, he must have a meal accompany him but if he is making Kiddush on bread, he does have to have any meal accompany him for the requirement of קידוש במקום סעודה.
Pesachim 101
In the requirements of Kiddush B’makom Seuda, it is important to note that not only is there an accompanying meal with the Kiddush but the Kiddush be followed in close proximity of time with the meal. If there is a significant interruption of time, then one might not fulfill the mitzvah of Kiddush as it falls short of the requirements of Kiddush B’makom Seuda. The Shulchan Aruch, followed by the Rema in the Laws of Shabbos 273:3, stipulates that there cannot be any interruption of time between the Kiddush and the meal. These are their words:
אִם קִדֵּשׁ וְלֹא סָעַד, אַף יְדֵי קִדּוּשׁ לֹא יָצָא. {הַגָּה: וְצָרִיךְ לֶאֱכֹל בִּמְקוֹם קִדּוּשׁ לְאַלְתַּר, אוֹ שֶׁיְּהֵא בְּדַעְתּוֹ לֶאֱכֹל שָׁם מִיָּד, אֲבָל בְּלָאו הָכֵי אֲפִלּוּ אָכַל בִּמְקוֹם קִדּוּשׁ אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא (מַהֲרִ”י מוּלִין).
Based on this halacha, one can ask what the justification on Pesach night during the Seder is. The Kiddush is made at the beginning of the Seder and until the actual meal, there is a large interruption of primarily the Maggid section that features the narration of the Exodus of Egypt. While that may be a great Mitzvah, it creates an interruption between the Kiddush and the meal and if so, how does one fulfill their obligation for Kiddush during the Seder if the Kiddush is not B’makom Seuda?? Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach answers this question based on Mishna Berura who make a distinction as to what the interruption is related to.
If the interruption is unrelated to the meal, even it’s an emergency, then, unfortunately, the interruption will unravel the Kiddush connection to the seuda. However, when the interruption between the Kiddush and the seuda is related to the meal, the interruption does not sever the connection between the Kiddush and the seuda, and one would still fulfill the seuda. These are the words of the Mishna Berua in Ch. 273:14.
היינו שלא היתה דעתו לאכול מיד כגון שדעתו להפסיק בדברים אחרים והפסיק אפילו היה ההפסק אח”כ מחמת אונס אף שאכל אח”ז במקום קידוש לא יצא. ונראה דאם היה ההפסק מחמת הדברים שהם צורך סעודה לא חשיב הפסק.
Based on this, Rav Shlomo Zalman argues that the recitation of Maggid during the Seder although that is an interruption between the Kiddush and the Seuda, it is considered an interruption related to the Seuda
and does not sever the connection between the Kiddush and the Seuda.
Pesachim 102
If Yom Tov begins on Motzai Shabbos, there is a convergence of Kiddush of Yom Tov and Havdallah from Shabbos into one ceremony. There are multiple opinions in the Gemara among many Rabbis about which blessings take precedence in this ceremony’s order. A glaring omission of blessing that is not mentioned is the Bracha of besamim or spices. The Rashbam explains the reason for this omission. He says that, in general, the reason for smelling spices at the conclusion of Shabbos is to bring some relief to the soul who just had this extra spiritual dimension depart at this time. This extra spiritual dimension is referred to as the נשמה יתירה. The Rashbam continues to say that since this Shabbos does not conclude with a weekday but rather it concludes with the beginning of a Yom Tom, the extra spiritual dimension or נשמה יתירה stays with the person and there is no need for the spices or besamim. Tosfos objects to this by asking that there should be spices or besamim at the conclusion
of Yom Tov since at that time the extra spiritual dimension or נשמה יתירה will depart!!! Tosfos, therefore, concludes that the reason that there is no spices or besamim after that leads into Yom Tov is that there are other things that compensate the lack of the extra spiritual dimension or נשמה יתירה and that is Simchas Yom Tov. The Ramban answers the question of the Tosfos on the Rashbam. He says that at the conclusion of Yom Tov, the extra spiritual dimension or נשמה יתירה does not really depart and therefore besamim or spices are not really required. The Berdeitchever has a novel explanation for this. He explains that the Jewish People sanctified Yom Tov, unlike Shabbos, through the moon’s sanctification. Since the people worked to sanctify the Yom Tov, the extra spiritual dimension or נשמה יתירה does not depart at the concussion of Yom Tov and therefore would not require besamim or spices.
Pesachim 103
The Gemara relates a story about three Rabbis that were being served multiple cups of wine during the course of the meal. Rav Ashi was the one that just made the blessing on the original cup and did not make any subsequent blessings on other following cups served during the course of the meal. Based on this, Tosfos asks how one can justify making another blessing on the second cup during the Pesach Seder? Shouldn’t the blessing of the first cup of the kiddush cover the second cup just as the first cup of Rav Ashi covered the subsequent cups of wine? Tosfos responded by saying that the Haggadah’s recitation and the Hallel is considered an interruption in this regard. Even though one may drink wine between the two first cups of wine, however, once you begin the final blessing of Maggid, you cannot drink wine anymore. That makes the Maggid section equivalent to Birkas Hamazon that would necessitate a new
blessing for the second cup. The Rif has a different approach, and he writes that one should make a new blessing on the second cup simply because each of the four cups is a new mitzvah. The Rosh disagrees with the Rif and Tosfos and holds that you do not make a new blessing on the second cup since it is similar to Rav Ashi’s case in which the original cup of wine covers any subsequent cup of wine. IN terms of practical halacha, the Shulchan Aruch in Ch.474 of the Laws of Pesach rules in accordance with the Rosh and the Rema rules in accordance with Tosfos. Here are the words of the Shulchan Aruch:
שׁוֹתֶה כּוֹס שֵׁנִי וְאֵין מְבָרֵךְ עָלָיו לֹא בְּרָכָה רִאשׁוֹנָה וְלֹא בְּרָכָה אַחֲרוֹנָה, שֶׁאֵין מְבָרְכִין בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הַגֶּפֶן כִּי אִם עַל כּוֹס שֶׁל קִדּוּשׁ וְעַל כּוֹס שֶׁל בִּרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן, וְאֵין מְבָרְכִין עַל הַגֶּפֶן כִּי אִם אַחַר כּוֹס רְבִיעִי. These are the words of the Rema: וְהַמִּנְהָג בֵּין הָאַשְׁכְּנַזִּים לְבָרֵךְ בְּרָכָה רִאשׁוֹנָה עַל כָּל כּוֹס וְכוֹס, אֲבָל בְּרָכָה אַחֲרוֹנָה אֵין מְבָרְכִין רַק אַחַר הָאַחֲרוֹן לְבַד, וְכֵן דַּעַת רֹב הַגְּאוֹנִים.