Shiur Supplement #15 Daf 8b-9b
A. Ba'u minei mi-Rav [lines 13-16] Rav was asked:" Is it possible for students who live outside the city to travel to the House of Study in the early morning or at night (ie. while it is still dark) without risking their safety?"
He replied that they would be safe from harm but was unsure whether the protection afforded them by the mitzva of going to study would be extended to them for their return journey home.
B. Ve-khi me-achar de-afilu [lines 22-24] According to Issi ben Yehuda, those who participate in the mitzva of Pilgrimage to Yerushalayim on the Festivals will not suffer any loss on this account - neither on their journey to the Temple nor on their way home. He proves this from verses in the Torah.
The gemara questions the necessity of both these sets of verses: If one's person and property are protected on the way home when one has already fulfilled the mitzva, surely they will be protected on the way there too! Therefore, the Torah need not inform us about the protection offered on the way there. It would suffice to inform us about the protection offered on the return journey.
The gemara answers according to the opinion of R. Ami: The Torah is teaching us that even one who is not obligated to make the pilgrimage (ie. one who is not a land-owner) will receive an extra degree of protection during this time.
C. Beit Shammai omrim [lines 32-36] Beit Shammai [see Mishna daf 2a] rules that one must check two complete rows of barrels in the wine cellar for chametz. According to R. Yehuda this entails checking the outer two vertical rows - from top to bottom. According to R. Yochanan, however, this entails checking the outermost row and the entire row perpendicular to it (ie. the uppermost horizontal row).
D. Beit Hillel omrim [lines 38-40] Beit Hillel rules that one must check the two outer rows which are uppermost for chametz. According to Rav, this entails checking the two uppermost horizontal rows. According to Shmuel, this entails checking the uppermost row and the one behind it.
E. Mishna Once one has done bedika, he need not re-check his house for fear that a weasel (or some other rodent) has brought chametz in.
F. Ta'ama de-lo chazina [lines 3-9] The gemara deduces from the mishna that if one actually sees a weasel entering his house with chametz, he would be obligated to do bedika again. It cannot be assumed that the weasel has eaten the chametz he dragged in.
The gemara questions this logic: The house of a nokhri is considered tamei (ritually impure) as we are concerned that he may have disposed of a premature fetus or stillborn child in his dwelling. However, if a weasel or a swine can enter, we assume that they will eat any discarded flesh and, therefore, the house is not considered tamei. This stands in contradistinction to our mishna where we do NOT assume that the weasel will consume the chametz he brought into the house.
R. Zeira answers that weasels might not consume all the bread in their vicinity, thus, one must do bedika again. However, they will definitely consume all the meat that they find and, therefore, the house of the nokhri is not considered tamei.
G. Amar Rava [lines 10-14] Rava differentiates between the two cases in the following manner: We are uncertain whether there were ever any bodies in the house of the nokhri [safek] and, thus rely on the possibility that anything there would be eaten by weasels [safek]. However in our mishna, we are certain that chametz was brought into the house [vaday]. The only doubt is whether or not the weasel ate it [safek]. We cannot exempt one from checking for chametz, whose existence is known on the basis of the possibility that it has been removed by some other means. Ein safek motzi mi-dei vaday.
H. De-amar R. Oshiya [lines 25-28] One is only liable to separate ma'aser (a tenth of one's produce which is given to the Levi) if he brought it in to his house through the FRONT entrance After it had been processed. Thus, one who brings unprocessed wheat (ie. still in its husk) into his house is NOT obligated to give ma'aser.