Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE MINIMAL REDEMPTION

(a) (Rav Nachman): The Halachah follows Chachamim.
(b) Question: What is the minimal value (according to Chachamim)?
(c) Answer (Rav Yosef): Even a lean Seh worth a Danka (a sixth of a Dinar) may be given.
(d) Objection: This is obvious - the Mishnah permits a big or small Seh!
(e) Answer: One might have thought, it cannot be so cheap, or lean - Rav Yosef teaches, this is not so.
(f) R. Yehudah Nesi'ah had a Peter Chamor; he asked R. Tarfon how much the Seh used to redeem it must be worth.
(g) R. Tarfon: A generous person should give [a Seh worth at least] a Sela, a stingy person should give a [standard] Shekel (half a Sela), an intermediate person should give Rigya (this will be explained).
(h) (Rava): The Halachah is, one should give Rigya.

1. Question: How much is Rigya?
2. Answer: "RiGya" is three Zuz, "RaGil" [is close] to a Sela (two Zuz) and to a Shekel (four Zuz).

(i) Contradiction: Above, Rav Nachman ruled that the Halachah follows Chachamim!
(j) Resolution: If someone asks how much the Seh should be worth, we tell him Rigya;

1. If someone did not ask and gives a Seh worth a Danka, we do not tell him to give more.

(k) (R. Yitzchak): If one has a Peter Chamor and does not have a Seh to redeem it, he redeems it for its worth.
(l) Question: According to which Tana is this?

1. It is not like R. Yehudah - he says that the Torah requires redeeming with a Seh! (This is unlike the conclusion on Daf 9b.)

(m) Answer #1 (Rav Acha): It is like R. Shimon.
(n) Objection (Ravina): R. Yitzchak's teaching should be according to Halachah - surely, he would not rule like R. Shimon!

1. The general rule is, when R. Yehudah and R. Shimon argue, the Halachah follows R. Yehudah;
2. Also, our Stam Mishnah is like R. Yehudah!

(o) Answer #2 (Ravina): R. Yitzchak's teaching is even like R. Yehudah;

1. Surely, Peter Chamor is not more stringent than Hekdesh, which may be redeemed for its value (using money or other Metaltelim)!
2. Redemption with a Seh is not a stringency, rather, a leniency, it need not be worth as much as the Peter Chamor.

(p) Rav Nachman brei d'Rav Yosef redeemed a Peter Chamor for cooked herbs of the same value.

(a) (Rav Shizbi): If Reuven redeems Shimon's Peter Chamor, it is redeemed.
(b) Question: Who keeps the donkey, Reuven or Shimon?

1. We do not ask according to R. Shimon - since it was not Asur b'Hana'ah, it always belonged to Shimon (Reuven merely paid an obligation incumbent on Shimon)!
2. We ask according to R. Yehudah.

i. Since it was Asur b'Hana'ah before redemption, it is like Hekdesh - v'Nasan ha'Kesef v'Kam Lo, whoever redeems Hekdesh receives it;
ii. Or, since Shimon owned the net value(the donkey's value less the cost of a Seh to redeem it), it is like Shimon's!

(c) Answer (Rav Nachman - Beraisa): If Levi stole Shimon's Peter Chamor, he pays Kefel (double, like a regular thief) to Shimon;

1. Even though Shimon does not own it now, he will own it later.
2. Question: Who is the Tana of the Beraisa?

i. It is not R. Shimon - he permits benefit from it, even now Shimon owns it!

3. Answer: It is R. Yehudah;

i. We do not consider it like Hekdesh - if so, Levi would not pay Kefel - "v'Ganav mi'Beis ha'Ish," not if it was stolen from Hekdesh!
ii. Rather, it is considered Shimon's donkey (therefore, if Reuven redeemed it, Shimon keeps it) - this proof cannot be challenged.

(a) If only one mother was Mevakeres... (The Seh enters the pen for Ma'aser...)
(b) (Beraisa) Question: What is the case of taking Ma'aser on the Seiyin?

1. It cannot be after they were given to a Kohen - a Mishnah exempts (from Ma'aser) animals bought or received for a gift!

(c) Answer: The case is, a Yisrael had 10 doubtful Pitrei Chamorim, he designates 10 Seiyin and keeps them, he takes Ma'aser from them.
(d) This supports Rav Nachman:

1. (Rav Nachman): If a Yisrael had 10 doubtful Pitrei Chamorim, he designates 10 Seiyin and keeps them, he takes Ma'aser from them.

(e) (Rav Nachman): If a Yisrael inherited 10 definite Pitrei Chamorim from [his grandfather,] a Kohen, who had inherited them from [his grandfather,] a Yisrael, he designates 10 Seiyin and keeps them, he takes Ma'aser from them.

1. (We consider it as if his grandfather designated them and (because he is a Kohen) was entitled to keep them himself.)

(f) (Rav Nachman): If a Yisrael inherited Tevel (untithed produce) after Miru'ach (final processing) from a Kohen, who had inherited it from a Yisrael, he separates Ma'aseros and keeps them.
(g) He must teach both cases ((e) and (f)):

1. Had he taught only (e), one might have thought that he keeps the Seiyin because they are distinct (need not be separated) from the Pitrei Chamorim, but we do not consider (Ma'aser or other) Matanos (that must be given to Kohanim, Leviyim or the poor) that have not yet been separated as if they were separated;

i. (Since they never belonged to his grandfather, the Yisrael does not inherit them, he must give them away.)

2. Had he taught only (f), one might have thought that he keeps the Ma'aseros because they can be separated from the Tevel itself, but the Seh (or money) for the redemption is distinct from the Peter Chamor, it is not considered to have been designated.

(h) (R. Shmuel bar Noson): If one buys from a Nochri Tevel after Miru'ach, he separates Ma'aseros and keeps them.

(i) Question: Who did Miru'ach?

1. If the Nochri did Miru'ach, it is exempt from Ma'aser - the Torah obligates tithing "Deganecha (your grain)," we read this "Diguncha," Miru'ach of a Yisrael;

(j) Answer: The Yisrael did Miru'ach while the produce belonged to the Nochri (Tosfos; Rashi - the Yisrael was the Nochri's sharecropper);

1. He must Ma'aser them, for Ein Kinyan l'Nochri even if a Nochri buys land in Eretz Yisrael, it retains its Kedushah, the produce must be tithed mid'Oraisa;
2. He keeps the tithes, for a Kohen could not have forced them to be given (they are due to the Yisrael, who bought from the Nochri).

(k) (Often, the Gemara calls Nochrim "Kusim"; here, Kusim is meant literally, the people whom Sancheriv settled in place of the ten exiled Shevatim (these Kusim later converted).)
(l) (Mishnah): If one deposits food with a Kusi or Am ha'Aretz (one who is suspected of not tithing properly or keeping laws of Shemitah), when he takes back the food, it retains its status regarding Ma'aser and Shemitah (we are not concerned lest the Shomer switched it with his own food);

1. If one deposits with a Nochri, when he takes back the food he treats it like the Nochri's food (we are concerned that he switched it);
2. R. Shimon says, it is considered Demai (doubtfully tithed).

(m) (R. Elazar): All agree that he must Ma'aser the food - they argue whether or not he must give to the Kohen (for free):

1. The first Tana assumes that the Nochri surely switched it, tithes are given (for free) like from definite Tevel;
2. R. Shimon [is concerned *perhaps* he switched it, and he] considers it like Demai.

(n) Question (Abaye): They argue because we are unsure whether or not he switched it - if we knew that he surely switched it, all would agree that it is given to Kohanim;

1. But R. Shmuel bar Noson taught that if one buys from a Nochri Tevel after Miru'ach, he separates Ma'aseros and keeps them!

(o) Answer (Rav Dimi): Perhaps R. Shmuel discusses Terumah Gedolah, and the Tana'im discusses Terumas Ma'aser!
(p) Support (Abaye): [Yes,] you reminded me of R. Yehoshua ben Levi's teaching!

1. (R. Yehoshua ben Levi) Question: What is the source that if one buys Tevel after Miru'ach from a Nochri, he is exempt from giving Terumas Ma'aser?
2. Answer: "V'El ha'Leviyim Tedaber...Ki Sikchu me'Es Benei Yisrael," Terumas Ma'aser must be [separated and] given to Kohanim from Ma'aser that Leviyim receive from Yisrael;

i. If Leviyim buy Tevel from Nochrim (R. Tam - if Nochrim decide to separate Ma'aser and give to Leviyim), [they must separate Terumas Ma'aser but] they need not give Terumas Ma'aser to Kohanim.

(a) (Mishnah): If the Seh dies, it is permitted to benefit from it. (b) Question: Where was it when it died?

1. If it was already given to a Kohen, this is obvious, it is the Kohen's property!

(c) Answer: If it died by the original owner, the Mishnah teaches that it is given to a Kohen, he may benefit from it.
(d) Objection: Also this is obvious!
(e) Answer: One might have thought, before the Kohen receives it, it does not yet belong to him - the Mishnah teaches, this is not so, once it is designated it belongs to Kohanim.