The Gemara's extensive probing of any which place that chametz could be in play. Beginning with chametz being used as collateral in a loan. And ending (this daf) with chametz being buried under a landslide. How far we go to make sure we don't use chametz on Pesach! Also: Destroying chametz and nullifying the rest of it, in case there is any more. Plus: Who owns the collateral?! And what is the role of the creditor with regard to it, especially in the context of a chametz collateral?

More on "ta'am," conveying flavor. Now in the context of a ceramic pot, and chametz after Pesach - use it with food of a different type! Ah, but what if you used it for the same type of food? Rav and Shmuel dispute the matter. Plus: A strategy to prevent price gauging - relying on R. Shimon's opinion that one can benefit from chametz after Pesach. Also: An oven smeared with grease - now, what if you bake dairy in there? Or bread, which is pareve, and then you have to take exceedingly great care to not eat with dairy. How do we ensure that the flavors won't mix in prohibited ways? Beginning with no meat or dairy bread. And how does chametz fit in? And if flavor is transferred via heat, then what does that imply regarding cold utensils and the lack of transfer of flavor and the ability to make "mixtures."

More comparisons between chametz and hekdesh - including the phenomenon of the prohibition of food, and including chametz that is hekdesh on Pesach. Plus: Another example of two prohibitions coming together - in the case of having to pay damage from an action that itself violated Shabbat or Yom Kippur. Also - mixtures of prohibited food together with permitted food. Verging into the concepts that are most relevant in Hilkhot Kashrut... For example, what it takes for a food to be nullified in a larger amount of food... and when chametz can't be nullified at all.

Rejecting R. Yehudah's conclusion based on his own rationale, in the sharpest of terms. Also: Crumbling chametz and throwing it into the wind or the sea - does the crumbling apply to that which would thrown into the sea, or only into the wind, and throwing into the sea could be whole? A real grammatical conundrum. The parallel is grinding idols and scattering to the wind... or the sea, which just might be the Dead Sea. What is retrievable, and what is destroyed? Also: When Halakhah is affected by history - specifically, the original Pesach and how it was practiced. And what made the day of the 14th special? And how do we ensure Pesach in a post-Temple era, when there's no Korban Pesach, and the focus is on matzah and no chametz.

Intermingling of that wish is permitted with that which is forbidden - in complex ways. For example, baking bread with wood from an orlah tree. Or hekdesh. Which leads to issues of both me'ilah and the item losing its hekdesh status. But is burning different? The implications for the ashes that remain are telling. The prohibitions with regard to hekdesh go beyond the usual food prohibition. Also - more on the Gemara's logic and the kal va-chomer. Namely, a kal va-chomer doesn't work if the end results end up being lenient. And this is used to knock down R. Yehudah's position that chametz must be burned (as compared to other means of destruction), but at the end of the day, this position that sounds more stringent could leave you with chametz in your house over Pesach.

Getting benefit from something, unintentionally. Abaye's example is a story of R. Yochanan ben Zakkai enjoying shade from the wall of the Beit HaMikdash, as he taught. Other examples from cleaning the Beit HaMikdash - how they actually did their work. Also: sights and sounds and smells - and the benefits or enjoyment that they bring - are more abstract, and less tangible... with smell being more definite. How and to what extent is this applied? Note that the halakhah expects people to get enjoyment or benefit from their senses. Plus: A garment merchant who wears his wares, including shaatnez garments. And plus: Not using chametz to fuel a fire, even as it's being destroyed. Or orlah. Etc. A harsh psak - taking the issues seriously.

Milk and meat, as prohibited foods - where does the prohibition against benefit for in, or does it? The comparison to orlah, and why they are different, may be most significant. Also - "for medicinal purposes" will excuse and allow a lot of prohibited-for-benefit items. But not the Asherah. Which brings us to the Big 3 - mitzvot for which one should martyr oneself rather than transgress. Plus: What if you get benefit from something prohibited for benefit - against your will?!

Our learning today is in honor of Deborah Spector on her birthday dedicated by her chevruta, Cindy Barnard. || More What's What on "kal va-chomer." Also - when it comes to removing chametz, if you don't do it, you've violated two negative commandments. A variety of biblical verses come together to prohibit the eating of various creatures, as a sample of many verses coming together to round out the prohibition. The explication of text thereby elaborates on the negative commandments without actually increasing the number of negative commandments. Plus: The requirement that the violation include doing it in the normal, standard, usual manner of doing it, or of getting benefit - if one is to be given lashes for the violation.

More on the prohibitions against eating that counter R. Abahu's claim that a prohibition against benefit comes with the eating prohibition. Hizkiyah chimes in as well. And then the Gemara goes in to limit R. Abahu's claim extensively.

On R. Abahu's position that every prohibition against eating that is in the Torah carries with it a prohibition against getting benefit from that same food. How does this pan with out with the Gid HaNasheh (the sciatic nerve)? Moreover, does the gid ha-neshesh contribute to the flavor of the food? Also, what about the prohibition against non-Jews eating from the limb of a live animal. Note the introduction of the extension of responsibility to protect another from transgression. Plus: The significance (or lack thereof) of the Hebrew word "et."