Rabotai (gentlemen), thank you all for coming. The Eibershter (the Almighty) should give us weiter der siyata diShmaya (Heavenly assistance), and that’s all. Remember, in this shiur (lesson), you can ask whatever is bothering you.
We’re beginning perek (chapter) Elu Overin, and we’d like to start with a small hakdamah (introduction). We find that in many places, the Mishnah Berurah, before beginning a shvere inyan (difficult subject), gives a hakdamah to bring you into what we’re going to learn. This happens to be a very, very shvere Mishnah. There are three mahalachim (approaches) to learning the pshat (plain meaning) of the first three words of the Mishnah. If there are three ways the Rishonim (early authorities) learn the first three words of a Mishnah, it’s quite obvious that this is not an easy Mishnah. Therefore, I’d just like to time try: if the shiur today is only on these three words, azai moichel.
Let’s begin. We know there are three levels of issurim (prohibition) of the Torah when it comes to ma'achalot asurot, things that you’re not allowed to eat. There’s a level where there’s an issur Torah. It’s only an issur. Then there’s a level where you’re over on a lav (negative commandment), for which you get malkot (lashes). Then there’s a level of ma'achalot asurot for which you get karet (excision). In that case, not only are you over an issur, and not only do you get malkot for the lav, but you’re also mechuyav in karet. Therefore, if, let’s say, you were a shogeg (unintentional transgressor), you would bring a korban (offering).
It happens that on Yom Tov Pesach (Passover), we find all three levels of these prohibitions on food. Interesting, no? For instance, we find an issur if someone eats a korban Pesach (Passover offering) raw. He eats the korban Pesach raw, raw meat, and then he’s over on the issur aseh of ki im tzeli esh (only roasted over fire). The Torah said that you’re supposed to eat the korban Pesach tzeli (roasted), and you ate it raw. If someone eats the korban Pesach cooked in water, or not fully tzeli, then he’s over on a lav: al tochlu mimenu na, ki im bashel (do not eat it raw, but cooked). So there’s a lav of al tochlu mimenu na, and you shouldn’t eat it bashel mevushal bamayim (cooked in water). That’s a level called a lav.
Then we have a level of karet, which is if someone eats chametz (leavened grain) bePesach (on Passover). It’s ma'achalot asurot, but it’s not the level of issur or the level of lav; it’s the level of chayavei kritot (offenses punishable by excision), Rachmana litzlan (may the Merciful One save us). Someone who eats chametz bePesach is over on a chiyuv karet.
Now, why is there such a chumrah (stringency) on ma'achalot asurot on Pesach? In other words, why is there such stringency about what you’re allowed to eat and what you’re not allowed to eat? Ken zein. Because Pesach is the Yom Tov of peh sach. Peh sach means that we became the nation, am zu yatzarti li tehilati yesaperu (This people I formed for Myself, that they might declare My praise). We became the nation that, through our dibur (speech), declares tehilati yesaperu. We were designated to be mefarsem Elokut (publicize divinity) in the world. That’s what we were zocheh (privileged) to be: am zu yatzarti li tehilati yesaperu. That’s our job.
In order that the tehilot ve'tishbachot (praises and songs) should come out in the proper manner and produce what they have to produce, our mouths, our peh (mouth), have to be cleansed. Our peh should be in the right form in order to be able to produce tehilati yesaperu. Therefore, because of that, we find on Pesach such a chomer (stringency) of ma'achalot: food that there’s an issur to eat, food that there’s a lav against eating, and food for which there’s a chiyuv karet if someone eats it.
The Torah not only gave chametz a chiyuv karet, but also prohibited you from having chametz in your house. The Torah gave a lav of bal yera'eh bal yimatzei (it shall not be seen or found). This lav is not one for which you get karet. Uvifashtut, it’s also a lav of Pesachim daf zayin, a lav she'ein bo ma'aseh (a negative commandment without an action). There’s a Gemara that says there’s a lav hanitak la'aseh (a negative commandment redirected to a positive commandment), de'aseh tashbitu (the positive commandment to remove it). We’re not going into that inyan (matter), because that’s not our topic today on the parashah.
The Torah not only told you not to eat chametz, but also told you bal yera'eh bal yimatzei. It would seem, at the beginning of Pesachim, that there’s a machloket (dispute) among the Rishonim about whether the lav of bal yera'eh bal yimatzei is connected with the lav of achilat chametz (eating chametz). Is it a separate lav, as at least one shittah (view) of Tosafot seems to indicate about Rashi—that it doesn’t have to do with a shemirah (safeguard) against coming to eat? The Torah said you shouldn’t eat chametz, and the Torah also said that it shouldn’t be in your reshut (domain). Or did the Torah say that the reason they don’t allow you to have it in your reshut is kedei (so) that you shouldn’t come to eat it? Is bal yera'eh bal yimatzei connected to the issur achilah (prohibition of eating)? Or maybe not; maybe it’s bazunder (separate), a lav of issur chametz and a lav of bal yera'eh bal yimatzei. It would seem to be a machloket, and maybe we’ll be able to tie it today to what we’re learning.
Let’s begin. The Mishnah says, ve'elu overin bePesach (These pass away on Passover). What exactly does ve'elu overin bePesach mean? As Rashi says, let’s see the first Rashi. The Mishnah is going to describe four types of ta'arovot chametz (mixtures containing chametz) and three types of chametz nuksheh (inferior-quality chametz). Let me explain: when the Torah said kol ochel chametz (anyone who eats chametz) is venichretah (shall be cut off), the Torah was talking about chametz by itself, bifnei atzmo (by itself). On that, the Torah said there’s a chiyuv karet. What about if chametz is mixed with something? The first example in the Mishnah is kutach haBavli, a type of dip that contains both a milk product and bread, chametz. So it’s ta'arovet chametz. What’s the halachah there? That’s what the Mishnah is discussing.
The first four are kutach haBavli, shechar haMadi, chometz ha'Adomi, and zeitom haMitzri. They’re called by names of a medinah (country); each of the four ta'arovot chametz is attached to the name of a place. Then the Mishnah brings down three different types of chametz nuksheh. Chametz nuksheh is, be'etzem (essentially), chametz by itself, not mixed with anything, but the chametz itself is really not able to be eaten. It’s not something people normally eat, such as zoman shel tzaba'im, amilan shel tabachim, and kulan shel soferim.
Now Rebbi Eliezer is going to add—we’ll soon explain each one by itself; I just want to give you the gist of what’s going on in the Mishnah—af tachshitei nashim (even women’s cosmetics). Rebbi Eliezer came and was mosif (added). Rov Rishonim say the pshat is that he said: what if you have both ta'arovet chametz and chametz nuksheh? What’s the din? Rebbi Eliezer said af tachshitei nashim: even if you have both things in one product, ta'arovet chametz and chametz nuksheh, it will have the same din as ta'arovet chametz by itself and chametz nuksheh by itself. That’s what Rebbi Eliezer came to be mosif, and the chachamim (Sages) argued with him.
The Mishnah ends with zeh haklal (This is the rule): when it says eilu overin bePesach, kol shehu mimin dagan (Anything of the grain species), harei zeh over bePesach, and harei eilu be'azharah ve'ein bahem mishum karet (They are subject to warning, but not excision). The Mishnah says we’re talking about something for which there’s only a lav, but no karet. Dos iz di Mishnah.
But what does overin bePesach mean? What are we talking about: the issur of bal yera'eh uval yimatzei, or the issur achilah? What does eilu overin bePesach mean? Chametz gamur (complete chametz), chametz belo ta'arovet (chametz without a mixture), chametz that’s ra'ui le'echol (fit to eat), is chayavei kritot on eating. And even without eating, just having it in your reshut, there’s a lav of bal yera'eh uval yimatzei. But what about this chametz beta'arovet (in a mixture) or chametz nuksheh? When the tanna says eilu overin bePesach, what are we referring to?
Rashi says, eilu overin aleihem beval yera'eh uval yimatzei: he’s referring to the lav of bal yera'eh uval yimatzei. The din is that chametz beta'arovet or chametz nuksheh also has the lav of bal yera'eh uval yimatzei. Rashi will learn that when the Mishnah says harei eilu be'azharah ve'ein bahem mishum karet, it must be referring to eating them. Lich'orah (seemingly), if we’re speaking about bal yera'eh uval yimatzei, of course there’s no karet. Even with chametz gamur there’s no karet for bal yera'eh uval yimatzei. So Rashi has to say that the end of the Mishnah, harei eilu be'azharah ve'ein bahem mishum karet, is referring to im achalan (if he eats them).
In other words, the reisha (first part) of the Mishnah is talking about the lav of bal yera'eh uval yimatzei. The seifa (last part) of the Mishnah is talking about the lav of eating. If he eats them, the halachah is that there’s no karet, but there is a lav. Dos iz Rashi’s mahalach pshat in di Mishnah. Eilu overin bePesach refers to the lav of bal yera'eh uval yimatzei, and Rashi’s shittah is that there’s bal yera'eh uval yimatzei regardless of whether there’s an issur achilah carrying karet on the item.
Before we go weiter, this would indicate that Rashi holds that bal yera'eh uval yimatzei is not attached to the chiyuv karet of chametz. Remember the she'eilah (question) we began with: isn’t the Torah’s din of bal yera'eh uval yimatzei by chametz because of the severity of the chiyuv karet that there is for the issur achilah? Is that the pshat of bal yera'eh uval yimatzei? Because this achilah is chayav karet, the Torah was careful and said, “Listen, we’ll give you bal yera'eh uval yimatzei to protect you from the issur karet”? Or does it have nothing to do with that; is it a separate lav of bal yera'eh uval yimatzei, regardless of the issur karet?
Lich'orah, from Rashi it would clearly indicate that Rashi holds that even chametz nuksheh and chametz beta'arovet, which have no karet, still have bal yera'eh uval yimatzei. So we see that bal yera'eh uval yimatzei is not attached to the issur achilah. S'hot nisht (it’s not) the issur achilah that gives it a din of bal yera'eh uval yimatzei. Azoy veyzt ois clear from Rashi that that’s the halachah. This goes hand in hand with Rashi at the beginning of Kol Sha'ah, which maybe we’ll go into later.
The Torah seems to say, Shiv'at yamim se'or lo yimatzei bevateichem, ki chol ochel machmetzet (For seven days, leaven shall not be found in your houses, for whoever eats leaven). Ki chol sounds like the reason and cause: that’s the pshat of the pasuk. He’s not now saying, “Beautiful. Today, in today’s keriah, this pasuk was…” This pasuk would be mashma (indicate) that the two are attached. But from Rashi, it would seem they’re not attached.
“Wait, what’s the difference if there’s a kezayit bichdei achilat peras (an olive-sized amount eaten within the time it takes to eat a loaf) or not? If you have no kezayit bichdei achilat peras, then you might not be over even on nuksheh, on ta'arovet.” One second. What are you saying? The Gemara says it’s talking about a case where there is no kezayit bichdei achilat peras. Bal yera'eh? Bal yera'eh and bal yimatzei. First of all, let me understand what you’re saying. You’re saying there’s no kezayit bichdei achilat peras, but if there’s more than that—if someone ate it in 50 minutes—maybe there is a kezayit? Who says bal yera'eh, bal yimatzei needs to have a kezayit bichdei achilat peras? Kezayit bichdei achilat peras is a din in achilah. But if there’s no din achilah, we have a kezayit chametz here, my friend! Why do you need it to be a kezayit bichdei achilat peras?
This is a zaytike zach. We’ll discuss it yet, but this is a side issue that you’re bringing up. The Gemara is going to say that our Mishnah is talking about where it’s not a kezayit bichdei achilat peras. True, true, true. So the question is: what’s the chidush (novel point) in the Mishnah? Because of heter mitztaref le'isur (permitted food combines with prohibited food). See, that’s in the Gemara; we’ll soon see. The Gemara says that maybe we say heter mitztaref le'isur, so you have a shi'ur (measure). Even though heter mitztaref le'isur, you don’t have karet. You got it? Okay, but that—no, no, no, no, farkert (the opposite). Rashi, with what you just said, you could answer Rashi. One second; we’ll soon see.
Tosafot argues. Tosafot on the spot brings down Rashi, velo bal yera'eh uval yimatzei. Rashi is learning eilu overin. What does the word overin mean? Over al lav (transgressing a negative commandment)! Rashi learns eilu overin aleihem. Rashi adds the word aleihem. You saw that Rashi? Rashi tut araynleygn aleihem. So Rashi learns that eilu overin means the person is over on a lav. That’s how Rashi learns it: eilu overin on the lav.
The Riva says no. The Riva learns like Rashi that there’s bal yera'eh, bal yimatzei, but the Riva explains eilu overin to mean over min ha'olam (removed from the world): there’s a din bi'ur (requirement to remove it). The Riva is maskim (agrees) with Rashi that the pasuk is speaking about bal yera'eh, bal yimatzei. But eilu overin doesn’t mean the person is over; it means the item has to be removed min ha'olam. The din is bi'ur. Heyst, the Riva agrees with Rashi that there’s bal yera'eh, bal yimatzei, but explains eilu overin as referring to a din bi'ur.
Rabbeinu Tam doesn’t like that pshat. Meilei Rabbeinu Tam doesn’t like it. You know why? He says a very shtarke tayneh (strong argument): you need a ribui (an inclusive textual derivation). Where do you learn out all these cases—ta'arovet chametz and chametz nuksheh? From a ribui, mi-kol machmetzet lo tocheilu (from every leavened thing you shall not eat). He says, ve'afilu be'achilah lo hayah mechayev ei lav de'rabyei kra: if the Torah hadn’t included it, you wouldn’t know there was an issur achilah. Ume'eicha teiti bal yera'eh, bal yimatzei? Where do you get bal yera'eh, bal yimatzei from? Where should bal yera'eh, bal yimatzei come in? You should need a pasuk for bal yera'eh, bal yimatzei, just as the Torah needs a ribui for issur achilah.
So how does Rabbeinu Tam learn? Eilu overin doesn’t mean bal yera'eh, bal yimatzei; eilu overin means it’s assur (prohibited) to eat. What does overin mean? Overin heinu me'al hashulchan (they are removed from the table), delav benei meichlei ninhu (because they are not fit to be eaten). Aval bal yera'eh leita: there’s no bal yera'eh. What’s review what we have here? Rashi’s shittah is that eilu overin bePesach means that you’re over bal yera'eh, bal yimatzei. The Riva says overin means over min ha'olam. Rabbeinu Tam learns that eilu overin bePesach doesn’t mean bal yera'eh, bal yimatzei; it means an issur achilah.
So what does overin mean according to him? Overin me'al shulchani: you shouldn’t have it on your table; you should remove it from your table. Rabotai, have we made clear the two pshatim in the Mishnah so far? Rashi learns it’s bal yera'eh uval yimatzei, and over has two teitchen (meanings): either Rashi’s pshat, over aleihen, that you are over, or the Rivash’s pshat, overin min ha'olam. Rabbeinu Tam learns that it’s not talking about bal yera'eh uval yimatzei, because you need a pasuk for bal yera'eh uval yimatzei. Ela mai (rather), what does eilu overin mean? Overin me'al shulchano, because there’s an issur achilah, a lav de'achilah, but there’s no din of bal yera'eh uval yimatzei.
Let me ask you something, agav (by the way): why didn’t the Mishnah clearly say the word asur? Why does it say overin, and then make a ganze planter out of what overin means? Why didn’t it say ve'elu asurin bePesach? Vos darf men do gehn mit a ganze a ganze? You might say, “Lazy, you’re kvetshing too much.” Right? You want to hear the Tzlach’s kashya (question)? The Tzlach asks, what does it say bePesach for? Where are we? In Sukkot? In Rosh Hashanah? In Yoma? We’re in Pesachim, we’re in Pesach. So eilu overin—vos darf men zogn bePesach? Azei fregt the holy Tzlach.
The Tzlach wants to answer that eilu overin bePesach tells us there is no issur kodem Pesach (before Pesach); the issur is only on Pesach. “That means Erev Pesach, you mean?” Erev Pesach. Rabbi Yehudah holds that mishesh sha'ot ulema'lah (from six hours onward), there’s an issur chametz not only on Pesach itself but even on Erev Pesach. So what’s the din by ta'arovet chametz and chametz nuksheh? Is there an issur on Erev Pesach or not? The Tzlach says that’s what the Mishnah is coming to tell us: there is no issur on Erev Pesach; there is only an issur of ta'arovet and nuksheh. He says, just as Tosafot on daf bet says there’s no issur of ta'arovet and nuksheh after Pesach, so just as there’s no issur after Pesach, there’s no issur before Pesach either. Azei vil der Tzlach masbir zein.
But Rashi has no eitzah (solution), because Rashi’s shittah is that there is bal yera'eh uval yimatzei before Pesach. Rashi’s shittah is that from shesh sha'ot ulema'lah there’s bal yera'eh uval yimatzei. Mimeila, the Tzlach’s teirutz (answer) doesn’t work for him. So why does it say bePesach? Azei fregt der Tzlach, but it’s a Tzlach’dige kashya.
“Why would Rabbeinu Tam have to eat matzah ashirah on Erev Pesach? Let him eat this.” “You’re not yotzei (fulfilling the obligation).” “Erev Pesach, you mean?” “Yes, Erev Pesach.” “What? Doesn’t taste…” Not nuksheh; it’s not good, it doesn’t taste good. Glue, paint—what are we talking about? You’re not going to eat glue. It’s not good, not geshmak. What about kutach haBavli and shechar haMadi? Are these not good? Beer? So you’ll drink beer. What are you going to do, drink beer all day? That’s not going to zatt you, that’s not going to fill you up. He wants lechem (bread). But azoy zogt der heiliger Tzlach.
“Are we talking about chametz that’s eino ra'ui le'achilah (not fit for eating)?” “It’s a dip.” “Toast is a dip.” “Oh no, chametz nuksheh that’s eino ra'ui le'achilat adam (not fit for human consumption).” Okay, so that’s the Tzlach’s kashya: what’s bePesach? If I ask what overin means, why didn’t it say asur? Kum un zog nor a divrei aggadah.
Why is asur better? It’s clear! What does overin mean? No, no, so then say it should be bal yera'eh uval yimatzei. Yeah, I know, but if you’re going to push me, I’ll push you: it should say eilu overin beval yera'eh uval yimatzei, or eilu overin be'achilah. Why does it say overin? It’s ambiguous. It’s very ambiguous: there are three teitchen, three pshatim, for what overin means. Rashi learns overin means you’re over on the issur; the Rivash learns overin means overin min ha'olam; Rabbeinu Tam means overin me'al hashulchan. Between Riva and Rashi, Riva wants to say it’s about the issur bi'ur. Rashi is not learning about the issur bi'ur. Rashi says eilu overin means the person is not allowed to eat. The halachah is the same, but what is the tanna referring to?
But we’re talking about divrei aggadah, rabotai. Uvechein, azoy: the tanna had an intention in using eilu overin. If you’ll notice, there are four countries: kutach haBavli, shichar haMadi, chometz ha'Adomi, and zeitom haMitzri. We’re talking azoy that this is merumaz (alluded to) in the arba galuyot (four exiles): Bavli, Paras, Edom, and zeitom haMitzri. I don’t know if it’s Mitzri. Who says Mitzri? Maybe it was a town in Yavan, one of the Greek cities. As far as you know, maybe it’s in the Greek cities.
Be'emet, the Ba'al Haturim says that the arba kosot (four cups) are keneged (correspond to) the arba galuyot. If we’re holding by Pesach and a Yid learned into the Mishnah, ken men mispallel zein (one can pray) that they should be overin, that we should already pass through the golus (exile). Where are we? Edom. You’re learning in Bavel, bist in Bavel, zol shoyn durchgeyn golus Bovel. If you’re in Madai, zol shoyn durchgeyn dem golus Madai. If you’re in Edom, zol shoyn durchgeyn di golus Edom. It’s a way of tefillah (prayer), to be mispallel (pray).
For example, we began the Haggadah with ha lachma anya (this is the bread of affliction). Everyone matert zich (explains), “Vos hot men ongefangen mit ha lachma anya? Why did we begin in Aramaic?” The poshute pshat is, Chazal tell us in Shabbat that malachei hasharet (ministering angels) do not recognize other languages, only lashon hakodesh (the holy language). Normal tefillah needs malachim (angels) to take it up. A tefillah is piggybacked by malachim; they’re the motor that takes your tefillah up.
On the night of Pesach, when you sit by the Haggadah, you’re on the level of ki ani velo malach, ani velo saraf (For I, and not an angel; I, and not a seraph), so you’re mamash (really) close to the kisei hakavod (Throne of Glory). Azoy vi der Ramban explains in parashat Shemot, gimel-chet—look it up, perek gimel, pasuk chet—where the Eibershter reviews vegam ani shamati et na'akat bnei Yisrael (And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel). The Ramban asks what the Eibershter was telling Moshe when He said that He heard the na'akat bnei Yisrael. In pasuk zayin, what does the Eibershter say to Moshe Rabbeinu again? Vegam ani shamati. The Ramban says He told Moshe Rabbeinu that the tza'akah (cry) of Klal Yisrael had reached the kisei hakavod. It didn’t go up; it’s by the kisei hakavod. That’s how far up it is.
On seder night, when we say, we don’t need to daven (pray), and we don’t need malachim to help us. Men ken redn lashon arami, because it’s ani, mir haltn in dem darga fun ani velo malach (we’re holding at the level of “I, and not an angel”). So eilu overin bePesach: when Pesach comes, ken men mispallel zein that they should be overin, that golus Bovel, golus Madai, and golus Edom should already pass. Dos iz di eilu overin bePesach. That’s why the tanna added the word bePesach.
Now I want to say a nice vort, rabotai. This is off the record. The current events were that the president had gotten together and had what he calls a seder at the White House, the second night. They said the hesber (explanation) was that a year before, in Chicago, he had had a seder, and instead of saying leshana haba'ah biYerushalayim (next year in Jerusalem), he said leshana haba'ah in the White House. When he said leshana haba'ah in the White House, it was mekuyam (fulfilled). Iz mimeila he probably can get a seder, azoy the reporters write over.
To us it’s a gelechter (a joke), rabotai. It’s not a gelechter. What do I mean? Two things: I’ll give you soft and tough. You ready? I said over this Yom Tov a Maharsha. The Maharsha says that the achilat matzah bePesach by a seder is achilat menachot (eating meal offerings) in the azarah (courtyard). We’re a kohen. Azoy shtayt in a Maharsha in kuf-tet-zayin. We’re shirei menachot. Mir zenen kohanim, and the makom (place) where we’re eating is the azarah. What are we eating? We’re eating menachot. That’s the dargah of what menachot are.
We know that Shlomo Hamelech was mitpalel (prayed) in the Beit Hamikdash. He said that when a Yid comes to the Beit Hamikdash and davens, if he’s worthy, give him what he asks for; if he’s not worthy, don’t. But if a goy davens—what a goy davens is, we don’t understand—give him whatever he wants. He was probing the seder, in his mind. Some say it’s politically correct: “Say what you want.” Ober ma'aseh ma'aseh, the goy sat down with matzah and wine, with a yarmulke—twisted, twisted. A yarmulke? I don’t know. I wasn’t there.
But I can say one zach. He said, “Leshanah haba'ah in Washington.” Hot er doch mitpalel geven; hot er doch gedavent. Who knows if his tefillah was nishma (heard) and if he was zocheh? You can’t know. He went with this whole see—let me—. To him this is as foreign as, lehavdil elef alfei havdalot, Buddhism, right? That’s how foreign it is for him. Vos hot er a shaychut to the whole thing? Un mikol makom does er hot zikh avekgezetzt with his two cronies Jews, right, Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel. They weren’t there by the second seder? Yeah, they weren’t there. So who did he prob? He had other Yiddin. And Chicago, they weren’t there either? One was in Chicago, one was somewhere else. Oh, maybe they were in Chicago. But in Chicago could be they were, could be by that one they were, could be and they were. Is mimeila he was mitpalel, he er hot doch es gemeynt. Er hot doch es gemeynt. So if er hot es gemeynt, ver veyst, who knows if it was nishma? Men ken nisht visn. What does it have to do with us? I’ll tell you what it has to do with us. What’s the pshat that this came out in the news? How come? We established first that everything is hashgachah pratit (individual providence). Nothing is azoy, right? Nothing just happens, especially something like this. Who knows if the Eibershter is giving us mussar (reproof) about doing mitzvot melumadah (habitual commandments)? Who knows if the Eibershter is telling us, “You Americans, you go ahead and pay a lot of money for matzah and a lot of money for an etrog, but come on! Is it really the mitzvah? What do you hear?”
Ken zayn (it may be) that the Eibershter is giving us mussar. Men ken nisht visn (we can’t know). He’s giving us a sevara (reason); men darf visn, na vaday (one needs to know, certainly). Mitzvot melumadah is azoy vi the seder of Obama, where he conducted the seder. Azoy zolstu visn. In Shamayim (Heaven), they look down on it. We’re looking here with the ganze sternkeit: he did a mitzvah, but it’s melumadah. You’re more interested in what type of wine is in the arba kosot. What type of wine did you buy? “Oh, it’s only $300 a bottle.” You know, melumadah. You have to be careful about melumadah.
Another Yid paid $200 for a kilo of matzah. I don’t know what he did over there. Someone told me he paid $56 for a pound. Okay, I heard what he did: he had one matzah in the oven. Mimeila, it took over the whole place, and the person wasn’t able to produce, so he charged that amount. Dos ken ich hern. Ober $200 a kilo matzah, dos farshtey ich nisht. The idea is, men muz tun a zach, rabotai. Men muz tun a zach.
Mitzad sheni (on the other hand), Baruch Hashem, we did a beautiful Birkat Hachamah. The olam went out and did it, and the Eibershter helped us and gave us this special, mamash a gevaldige zechut (tremendous merit), to be able to mekayem the mitzvah with a bren, with a hitlahavut, at 5:30 in the morning. The olam was getting up, rushing off to daven kevatikin (at sunrise). I said, people who don’t get up until 9:00 in the morning were in our shul davening kevatikin. You can’t see them at 9:00 or 10:00; the closest you can see them is in Landau’s at 11:00. And here they were in our shul, and we were packed. We didn’t know where the people came from. It was full. People were, Baruch Hashem—men zet vos Yidden (you see what Jews are).
I said it’s a hakdamah to the Beit Hamikdash, a hakdamah with a great teshuvah (return) to the Beit Hamikdash. Mir zoln zocheh zayn to the Beit Hamikdash. Amen. So der Eibershter helfn (may the Almighty help us), if my pshat is good: eilu overin bePesach. Let’s say the malchut Edom should get lost, and zol shoyn kumen Mashiach tzidkeinu bimheirah beyameinu (may our righteous Messiah come speedily in our days). Amen.
Iz es azoy, rabotai, a little bit more on this inyan; we’re not yet finished with it. Do I know of another place that says such a lashon (expression)? No, I don’t know. Nada. I don’t know of another lashon. Bchein. We spoke out the three shitat: Rashi, with Riva like Rashi, and Rabbeinu Tam. So Rashi’s shittah is bal yera'eh uval yimatzei. Rabbeinu Tam disagrees and claims it can’t be bal yera'eh uval yimatzei, because you see that you need a ribui hapasuk (an inclusion in the verse). If you need a ribui hapasuk, that’s the re'ayah (proof): without a ribui, we wouldn’t know the issur achilah. Ume'eicha teiti bal yera'eh uval yimatzei? You need a pasuk for bal yera'eh uval yimatzei. If you don’t have the pasuk for bal yera'eh uval yimatzei, there’s no bal yera'eh uval yimatzei. So obviously it means not the issur bal yera'eh uval yimatzei, but issur achilah.
The Sfat Emet, be'emet, is in teinot, and then he says a davar pashut (simple point). He doesn’t understand why Rabbeinu Tam started up with Rashi. I’m getting back to what you said. The Gemara establishes that this ta'arovet has to be ta'arovet chametz that’s not batel (nullified). That’s what it’s speaking about: ta'arovet chametz that’s not batel. So what’s the problem? It’s not a kezayit bichdei achilat peras. That’s only relevant to the issur achilah: do you need a kezayit bichdei achilat peras? But what’s relevant to bal yera'eh uval yimatzei? Do you need a kezayit bichdei achilat peras? You don’t need it. As long as there’s a shi'ur chametz here—for instance, a kezayit chametz—even if it’s much less than a kezayit bichdei achilat peras, there’s a kezayit chametz in the mixture. It will take you an hour to eat the whole mixture, but there’s a kezayit chametz in it. Mimeila, there’s bal yera'eh uval yimatzei because of the ochel (food) itself. What do you need a ribui for? We’re speaking about a case where, for some reason, it’s not batel. Whatever the reason is, it’s not batel.
“Oh, oh, oh! That’s the nekudah (point). So, again, back to that nekudah: according to Rabbeinu Tam, the bal yera'eh uval yimatzei is all built on shema yavo le'ochlo (lest he come to eat it). That’s why he argues that it shouldn’t be bal yera'eh uval yimatzei either. You need a pasuk to teach us bal yera'eh uval yimatzei in this case, because if you eat it, you’re not going to be over. He goes with this mahalach that bal yera'eh uval yimatzei is attached to the issur achilah.”
Mah she'ein kein (unlike that), Rashi holds that bal yera'eh uval yimatzei is a zaytige issur; it has nothing to do with the issur achilah. HaKadosh Baruch Hu is machmir on chametz that there should be bal yera'eh uval yimatzei regardless. So Rashi says, as the Sfat Emet says, what do you need a pasuk for? Is there a kezayit chametz in this mixture? There is. For some reason, there’s no bitul; whatever the reason is, there’s a kezayit chametz here.
That’s how Rabbeinu Tam learned. Azoi lernt di shita fun Rabbeinu Tam. Gut, you’re saying that’s the shittah of Rabbeinu Tam. Ober shitat Rashi is that bal yera'eh uval yimatzei hot nisht tzu tun (has nothing to do with) the issur achilah of karet. There’s an issur besides the issur achilah of karet: bal yera'eh uval yimatzei, a bazunder lav that the Torah is machmir about. If this lav of bal yera'eh uval yimatzei is not attached to the issur karet, iyeh mimeila there’s an issur bal yera'eh uval yimatzei there.
Now there’s a third shittah, the shittat haRan, and it would seem that it’s also the Rashba. These Rishonim hold—wait a second. Before we divide up the third shittah, zogt der Rosh, and azay iz er mefaresh (he explains) a Tosafot on daf chaf alef amud bet: according to Rabbeinu Tam, ta'arovet chametz and chametz nuksheh have no bal yera'eh uval yimatzei, so you’re allowed to keep them in your house all Pesach. According to Rabbeinu Tam, you can have chametz, ta'arovet chametz, and chametz nuksheh in your house; there’s no bal yera'eh uval yimatzei. The Rosh says clearly, and so Tosafot says on daf chaf alef amud bet: since there’s no bal yera'eh uval yimatzei, there’s no reason you have to get rid of it.
What? Only ma'avir me'al shulchano (remove it from the table). The only thing you have to do is ma'avir me'al shulchano. Ober there’s no din of bal yera'eh uval yimatzei. So what does ma'avir me'al shulchano mean? It might make you eat it? If, let’s say, you have terumah teme'ah (impure terumah) on your table, which you’re not allowed to eat, is there a din that it has to be removed from your table? You’re talking about eating some foolishness. Yeah, lo bedilei minei (it is not repulsive to him). Chametz is different; lo bedilei minei. You say it’s because it’s ragil (something one is accustomed to). That sevara of regilut, just as Tosafot uses it for bedikah (searching), explains it.
Just as Tosafot says, what do you say? Good, I’m just reading in Tosafot what he said. That is, Rabbeinu Tam also has his shittah in Tosafot on daf bet amud alef. Tosafot asks the obvious kashya: why do you have to be bodek (search)? With bitul, bi'ah sagi (nullification is sufficient); bitul should be enough. Why do you have to learn that you must be bodek? Rashi had said that the reason you have to be bodek is to remove the bal yera'eh uval yimatzei. Tosafot asks, “When do you need to remove it for? You’re mevatel (nullifying) it.” Tosafot says the reason there’s a din bedikah after bitul is shema yavo le'okhlo, and that’s also the reason for bi'ur.
Tosafot asks, “Why is shema yavo le'okhlo more chamur than with other ma'akhalot asurot?” Tosafot says, “Because this is something that you’re ragil to eat.” Since you’re ragil to eat it, there’s a din bedikah. Kumstu tsu geyn and zogn a nice chidush: according to Rabbeinu Tam, ve'eilu ovrin bePesach, and when Rabbeinu Tam says you take it off me'al shulchano, that’s not just a description that you can’t eat it, nor is it a halachah that it can’t be on the table. Zogst a nice—you hear the chidush? Without this nice of this wonderful gentleman, you could learn the pshat in Rabbeinu Tam that eilu overin me'al shulchano means it’s asur to eat, that’s all. What’s on the table? Things you could eat. Eilu overin me'al shulchano means you can’t eat it.
So we asked: how come they use this description, eilu overin me'al shulchano? He wants to say a nice vort: the halachah is that way by basar bechalav (meat and milk), but by basar bechalav there’s no din of overin me'al shulchano. By basar bechalav, you have to make a hekker (a reminder); that’s all you have to do. I’m asking you, though—again, chazer what he said. His tayneh is that overin me'al shulchano is a halachah: you can’t have it on your table. Not like terumah teme'ah, or other ma'akhalot asurot, where there’s no din that it has to be off the table. For instance, if somebody has dam (blood) on the table, is there a din that he has to get the dam off the table? There’s no such din. Here there is a din of overin me'al shulchano, because this is something people normally eat, so mimeila you have to take it off the table.
“Doesn’t Tosafot say two sevarot? Tosafot says because it’s karet and also because it’s ragil.” That’s for bedikah. Hichmiru chachamim (the Sages were stringent), shema yavo le'okhlo, right? “And he brings down that…” Wait! “Okay, so you’ll say it’s not domeh to basar bechalav, because basar bechalav is an issur olam (an eternal prohibition) and this isn’t an issur olam.” Okay, there are always sevarot you could say. It’s only to make a hekker. If he’s a ba'al habayit (householder), does a hekker help? If you’re eating and no one’s around, you’re eating it—why not? There’s a hekker, but when no one’s around and you’re a ba'al habayit, you need two people? Ever hear there’s a din that you can have hekkers on the table? No. But there are two people. My friend, let me ask you: can two people at the table have one eat a milchige sandwich and one a fleishige sandwich? Or can you have basar on the table while you eat milchigs? A ba'al habayit by himself? No, no such din. That’s what he’s asking.
“Bar ma'achal means you’re not allowed to eat it. That’s what bar ma'achal means. The lav bar ma'achal doesn’t mean that you can’t eat it. Bar ma'achal means you’re not allowed to eat it.” “Not edible, though?” “No! Bar ma'achal means you’re not allowed to eat it, and Rabbeinu Tam learns that it’s an issur achilah.” Okay, so you’ll have to say this vort: they’re machmir by chametz, they’re ma'aviran me'al hashulchan, because chametz is something people are used to all year. Mimeila, people are used to it all year, so they came along and said that overin me'al hashulchan is takeh a din: men darf zein overin me'al hashulchan. Nemt es oichet. Why lav davka? Why this issur hana'ah (prohibition of benefit)? Because of your pshat’l. In other words, lav davka overin; it’s just the expression that you can’t eat it.
Okay, but Rabbeinu Tam is mashma that it’s overin me'al… Okay, ken zein, dos meint. I hear what you’re saying, Baruch. Ken zein, dos meint. Afeilu, good. He asks: maybe chametz nuksheh—who’s going to eat chametz nuksheh? Fact is, why does it have to be eilu overin me'al hashulchan? “What?” “Yeah, you call him a shoteh if they have ta'anot on you? It’s White Plains.” “With ta'arovet chametz.” “Ta'arovet chametz.” And that’s what he wants to answer you. You’re going to argue with him? No. Good. It’s smart. White Plains, White Plains. They’ve asked him.
Kumt azoy der Ran. The Ran goes ahead and says like this: he disagrees with Rashi. There’s no bal yera'eh uval yimatzei, not like Rashi. Tosafot’s tayneh is: where is the pasuk that there’s bal yera'eh uval yimatzei on ta'arovet chametz? You need a pasuk! But not like Tosafot, that the Mishnah is referring to the issur achilah. No. The Ran holds that because you’re not allowed to eat it, you have to burn it. Eilu overin means overin min ha'olam: you have to burn it. But why do you have to burn it? Miderabbanan (by rabbinic law), they gave a halachah that you have to burn it, because there’s an issur achilah.
“Does that work like a geder (safeguard)?” “Exactly.” So that’s the reason. What’s the takanah (rabbinic enactment)? No, the Rivash is mashma—and the Rivash is medakdek (precise)—like Rashi. You heard the Ran’s mahalach? Klig, you got it? Really, there’s no bal yera'eh uval yimatzei. We’re speaking here about the issur achilah. No, not like Tosafot, that overin refers to the issur achilah and means overin me'al shulchano. What does overin mean? There’s an issur miderabbanan to get rid of it. You have to get rid of it; you have to burn it. Everything I told you from the Rosh and Rabbeinu Tam, you can leave in your house the whole Pesach. You can’t leave it in your house all Pesach. Why? Because you might come to be over and eat it. You could bury it. Ei nami (or alternatively), burying it is also very good, my friend. But it means you can’t have it in your house. Eilu overin means overin min ha'olam, but not because of bal yera'eh uval yimatzei. The reason is because it’s asur miderabbanan to eat. It’s asur min haTorah to eat; there’s a lav to eat. Since there’s a lav to eat, mimeila you have to…
“What’s the difference with basar bechalav? If you have a mixture of basar bechalav together, why don’t you have to take it off the table?” No, we said before there’s a sevara that it’s an issur olam, so people are more careful. Over here, people might make a mistake and eat it. So shteit a gvaladige chidush: even though it’s not karet, even though it’s only chayavei lavin (offenses punishable by negative commandments), they gave it a derabbanan-dige bal yera'eh uval yimatzei. They gave you a derabbanan-dige bal yera'eh uval yimatzei. Miderabbanan, you have to get rid of it. Clear?
“Even chametz nuksheh?” Even chametz nuksheh. There’s a chashash (concern) they might— “Even chametz nuksheh is a chashash; they gave it a derabbanan-dige bal yera'eh bal yimatzei?” The question is: chametz nuksheh doch hovei dehavei lo ra'ui le'achilah? Ay, by Mechiltin it says like puk, and therefore they made it the same din. The halachah is that they gave it a derabbanan-dige bal yera'eh bal yimatzei.
They learned the Ran’s shittah, and among the Acharonim, Ma'aseh Beit—that’s really the shittah of the Rashba on daf bet amud alef in Tosafot. So what’s the machloket? Why didn’t Rabbeinu Tam like that? Why did Rabbeinu Tam have to kvetsh that eilu overin means overin me'al shulchano, and that it means issur achilah? Let the word overin mean overin min ha'olam, like the Riva says, and then it’s a derabbanan-dige bal yera'eh bal yimatzei. What’s the problem? Why didn’t Rabbeinu Tam like this? And it’s a Rashba, it’s a Rashba daf bet, and this is the Ran’s view. Vos iz shlecht? Vos iz shlecht?
I want to say like this. You want to hear what I want to say? Listen to this answer. There’s a famous Taz that comes to explain a famous kashya. The Taz is in two places in Shulchan Aruch. We know there’s a decree called gzeirat Rabbah (Rabbah’s decree): if Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbat, what’s the halachah? We don’t blow shofar. Shema ya'avirenu (lest he carry it). Megillah on Purim, we don’t have it—but in those days, when it went al pi re'iyah (according to observation), if Purim fell on Shabbat, shema ya'avirenu. Lulav, shema ya'avirenu.
So how come, Baruch Hashem, there are a lot of brisin in the community on Shabbat? Shabbat is the day they have bris. Why aren’t we afraid shema ya'avirenu? It’s involved because, komt a Yid, a Taz! Helft, do iz der Taz! A Taz! But I don’t remember: some of the Gedolim said that a vadai (certainty) in the Sha'agat Aryeh doesn’t become a safek (doubt) in the Taz. If there’s a vadai Sha'agat Aryeh and a Taz has a safek, the safek in the Taz is noch greisser than the vadai from the Sha'agat Aryeh. Yes? I want you to remember the Sha'agat Aryeh.
Here, the Taz says that if it’s meforash (explicit) in the Torah—a pasuk that tells us it’s muttar (permitted)—the Rabbanan won’t come along and make a gzeirah. Milah is a meforashe pasuk in the Torah: Uvayom hashemini yimol besar orlato (On the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised). Anyhow, why do you need Uvayom hashemini? We already have the earlier pasuk by Avraham, Bayom hashemini. So what does Uvayom hashemini yimol besar orlato do? It’s a pasuk that tells us afilu beShabbat (even on Shabbat). Once there’s a meforashe pasuk that the pasuk tells us afilu beShabbat, the Chachamim won’t come along and… That’s the Taz.
“Why can’t you simply say that the whole gzeirah was made for the am ha'aretz (unlearned person)? The person who needs to be mitlamed shofar might bring it there.” That’s another teirutz. There are those who answer your teirutz, Reb Ikey, there are. But we have the Taz’s teirutz. The Taz’s teirutz is a Tosafot in Eizehu Neshech. In Tosafot in Eizehu Neshech, this yesod (principle) is stated: where the Torah clearly permitted something, then the Chachamim—oh, we’ll make it clear now. You ready? Okay, now we have the Taz in the pocket. Now we’re heading toward the goal line.
The Torah said there’s bal yera'eh bal yimatzei by chametz gamur, correct? By chametz nuksheh and chametz ta'arovet, the Torah did not say bal yera'eh bal yimatzei. Does that mean the Torah explicitly said there’s no bal yera'eh bal yimatzei? Is that what the Torah was referring to? Since the Torah said that here there is bal yera'eh bal yimatzei, and here the Torah didn’t say there is bal yera'eh, does that tell us, rabotai, there’s no bal yera'eh bal yimatzei? And mimeila, if there’s no bal yera'eh bal yimatzei, is it as if the Torah explicitly said there’s no bal yera'eh bal yimatzei? Could the Chachamim then say that this is a derabbanan-dige bal yera'eh bal yimatzei? Or no?
If the Torah had told you, “No bal yera'eh bal yimatzei,” it would have said, “Chametz ta'arovet, chametz nuksheh, muttar to be beveitecha.” The Torah would tell you it’s permitted to be in your house. That’s called meforash. Ober, that’s not the pshat. You want to say like this—listen: mitoch hahashmatah (from the omission), that’s the word. Is the hashmatah ke'ein meforash (like an explicit statement), or not? What does a hashmatah mean? If the Torah leaves something out, does that mean the Torah is obviously saying the opposite? That’s the machloket.
“What’s that, meforash? It’s not meforash.” Oh, yeah. “They never said.” No, no! The din of shofar—the mitzvat shofar—the Torah didn’t say anything? The Torah said that you blow shofar on Rosh Hashanah. There was no indication. Here there’s an indication, because the Torah just said kol machmetzet lo tocheilu, and the kol is a ribui only by achilah, but the Torah didn’t say kol machmetzet by bal yera'eh uval yimatzei. And you’ll see.
“Why is there a kashya from lo tevashel gdi (You shall not cook a kid)? The Torah says lo tevashel gdi, and the Chachamim added the chicken. A gdi (kid) is not a chicken.” There’s no dimyon (comparison). You know why? Here, the Torah said that by chametz gamur there’s bal yera'eh, and by chametz nuksheh and chametz ta'arovet the Torah went ahead and was marbeh it only legabei achilah (with respect to eating). That’s stronger. It’s not like your case, where the Torah only mentioned gdi. The Torah mentioned gdi; the Gemara means all beheymot (animals), but not the chicken.
Over here, the Torah went ahead and made a mi'ut (exclusion), because it’s stronger than that. If the Torah had said, “Lo tevashel gdi,” and then said, “Ve-chen lo tevashel kol mah she-hu in the family of beheymot,” that would be considered the Torah saying “not.” But here the Torah didn’t say that. The Torah’s mi'ut—here it’s much stronger, because the Torah said there’s bal yera'eh uval yimatzei, and then, by ta'arovet, said there’s only this achilah, as if to say it because the Torah was marbeh this achilah. So it’s a lot stronger. Do halt der Ba'al HaTa'am that you can’t go ahead and be make a derabbanan that you can have bal yera'eh uval yimatzei, because it’s ke'ilu (as if) the Torah said it.
Besides that, by milah the Torah is explicitly telling you that you should be mal on Shabbat. The Chachamim won’t come and aser it, because the Torah wants you to be mal. Here, the Chachamim are adding to the chumrah. The Torah—the most, even if you infer it, the Torah is telling you that you’re not over bal yera'eh uval yimatzei. So a Chacham can come and say you are over miderabbanan on bal yera'eh uval yimatzei. But this isn’t because of milah. By milah, the Torah is telling you, “I want you to be mal.” The Chachamim can’t come and aser you from doing the milah.
You know that Tosafot was discussing ribit (interest). There, the Torah was saying that this ribit is asur and this ribit is not asur. And here, the Chachamim went along and said—Tosafot was discussing whether the Chachamim could now aser this type of ribit also. “And that’s what the Taz is discussing?” No, that’s what Tosafot is discussing, and that’s the makor (source) for the Taz. “That’s the makor for the Taz? There are many ribit de-rabbanan. Aren’t they asur?” They want to—what? They aser ribit de-rabbanan. There is such a thing as ribit de-rabbanan. “Yeah, but it seemed that that ribit was merumez in the Torah.” Oh, you haven’t seen that Tosafot. De-rabbanan, even not—dayn kashya.
The Sfat Emet asks this kashya. When he explains Rashi, he says he doesn’t understand the Ba'al HaTa'am. He explains Rashi that way, that’s why there’s bal yera'eh uval yimatzei, and he says he doesn’t understand the Ba'al HaTa'am, where the Ba'al HaTa'am comes to say there’s no bal yera'eh uval yimatzei. His tayneh is: in the Torah, by ta'arovet, the main problem is ta'arovet chametz. You don’t need a ribui legabei bal yera'eh uval yimatzei. You need it for achilah because you need achilat peras (the amount eaten within the time it takes to eat a loaf); you need a shi'ur. Dos iz zayn tayneh. That’s his tayneh.
There’s another tayneh they ask: maybe it should be asur be-val yera'eh for chatzi shi'ur (half a measure). Chatzi shi'ur asur min haTorah? Because chatzi shi'ur asur min haTorah. Reb Shmuel Rozovsky goes into a ganz shtikel Torah: why isn’t it asur be-val yera'eh uval yimatzei for chatzi shi'ur? Even if you say you have a chatzi zayit that isn’t a shi'ur of kezayit bichdei achilat peras, chatzi shi'ur is asur min haTorah! There’s no malkot, there’s nothing. So why shouldn’t there be bal yera'eh on that? What, bal yera'eh on the chatzi shi'ur? So he has a Torah on that: because you need chazi le'itztarufi (fit to combine with more). Over here, by bal yera'eh, it’s not chazi le'itztarufi. By achilah, that is kezayit bichdei achilat peras, so it’s chazi le'itztarufi; you can combine it through the kezayit bichdei achilat peras. But by bal yera'eh, by motzei (finding), it’s not chazi le'itztarufi. That’s Reb Shimon Shkop’s teirutz.
All right, let’s go over the Mishnah one more time, and let’s go home, you know—at least the Mishnah. Ve'elu ovrin bePesach. We have kutach haBavli. Kutach haBavli, I told you, is a salsa dip that contains spoiled bread, pat me'ufeshet, and milk products. They used to be tovel (dip) a ma'achal (food) in it. That’s kutach haBavli.
Shechar haMadi is a type of beer, a beer they used to put barley in. That’s shechar haMadi. Chometz haEdomi is vinegar made in Eretz Edom, where they also used to put barley in it to make it chometz, because lechatchilah (ideally), the best wine in the world was in Eretz Yisrael, in Yerushalayim. Aval, when Klal Yisrael was chased out of Eretz Yisrael at churban haBayit (the destruction of the Temple), where was the best wine? In Edom. That’s the best wine. The only way to make that wine sour was to put in barley. That’s all that made it sour. That’s why it’s called chometz haEdomi.
Then you have zeitom haMitzri, which also contains a type of vegetable. Rashi, the Rav, says it’s made be'ikar lirefu'ah (primarily for medicine). Those four, again, are ta'arovet chametz.
Now we go to chametz nuksheh, such as zoman shel tzabba'im. These are people who make dyes, so they put this zoman into tzabba'im, which is mayim (water) with subin (bran) in it. Ve'amilan shel tabachim: special chefs put a piece of a type of bread on the pot to get out the zuhama (filth). That’s amilan shel tabachim. Vekolan shel sofrim is a type of glue.
Reb Eliezer omer af tachshitei nashim. We explained what Reb Eliezer meant: af tachshitei nashim. Reb Eliezer came to lerabbot (include) something that combines the cases. Until now, we were discussing four types of ta'arovet chametz and three types of chametz nuksheh. What if you have a type that is both ta'arovet and chametz nuksheh, for instance, tachshitei nashim? Reb Eliezer says af tachshitei nashim: that too has the same din. It fits the Mishnah: zeh haklal, kol shehu mimin dagan, harei zeh over bePesach. And harei eilu be'azharah means it’s only a lav, ve'ein bahem mishum karet, but karet is patur (not applicable).
Okay, that’s Rashi. Rashi says what I told you: ve'ein bahem mimin dagan, chamishah minei chitin, se'orin, kusmin, shibolet shu'al, veshifon. Those are all five types of dagan (grain). Ve'ein bahem karet im achlan, aval lav yesh be'achilato. Ugemara yalfinan lekulhu (the Gemara derives them all). Tanu rabanan: sheloshah devarim ne'emru bekutach haBavli. Three things are said about kutach haBavli. First of all, rabotai, it’s metamtem et halev (It dulls the heart). Clos'd it zu, that the lev (heart) should be able to have its proper sensitivities. Metamtem et halev umesamme et ha'einayim (And blinds the eyes), umachchish et haguf (And weakens the body).
Vos iz sheyn gut vegn ven kutach haBavli? Rachmana litzlan. The ta'am (reason) is ta'avah (desire)! Ta'avah! That’s why it’s good. It’s a gevaldige dip; it gives good taste. The person doesn’t care about his heart, doesn’t care about his eyes, and doesn’t care about his body.
Wie men zet, Rachmana litzlan, the yunge kinder mit di reicherin, Rachmana litzlan! Vos tut zich do op now? The di naye guy with ta'avah! The cigarettes! The guy with ta'avah for cigarettes! Is dos the zelde zach: metamtem et halev, mesamme et ha'einayim—and what does it do? It machchish’t the whole guf! Vos zol men ton? Vos zol men ton? Lozen zay! What do you mean, “ton”? Lozen zay! Now let it!