Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) IF SOMEONE GRABBED THE GARMENT

(a) Question (R. Zeira): If Reuven grabbed the garment in front of Beis Din - what is the law?

1. Question: What is the case?

i. If Shimon kept quiet - he admits it is Reuven's!
ii. If Shimon protested - what else could he do?

2. Answer: The case is, he was silent, then protested.

i. Do we say that his initial silence was an admission?
ii. Or - does his protest reveal that his initial silence was only because he felt no need to protest, since Beis Din sees what happened?

(b) Answer (Rav Nachman - Beraisa): The case is, both are holding it - but if 1 holds it alone, for the other to take it from him, he must bring proof!.

1. Question: What is the case?

i. If, simply, 1 holds it - obviously, it is his (unless the other brings proof)!

2. Answer: Rather, (both were holding it, and) Reuven grabbed it in front of Beis Din.

(c) Rejection #1: No - both were holding it; we told them to split it. They left, and came back with Reuven holding it. Reuven says that Shimon admitted to him; Shimon says that he rented his half to Shimon.

1. Shimon is not believed - he claims that Reuven is a thief, he would not rent to him without witnesses!

(d) Rejection #2: No - when they entered Beis Din, Reuven was holding the garment itself, Shimon was holding onto the fringes.

1. Even Sumchus, who holds that when in doubt, we divide the money without an oath, admits that holding onto the fringes has no significance.

(a) If you will say that if when Reuven grabs it in front of Beis Din, we take it back (and Shimon gets half) - if Reuven declared it Hekdesh, (Shimon's half - some explain, the entire garment) is not Hekdesh;
(b) Question: If you will say that if when Reuven grabs it in front of Beis Din, he keeps it - what if Reuven declared it Hekdesh without grabbing it?

1. Since a declaration to Hekdesh is like an acquisition to a person, is it like grabbing it?
2. Or - since he did not grab it, it is not in his jurisdiction, it does not become Hekdesh.

i. "A man that will make his house Hekdesh" - just as his house is under his jurisdiction, a man can only make Hekdesh things in his jurisdiction, such as a disputed garment.

(c) Answer: Reuven and Shimon were fighting over a bathhouse, each said it was his. Reuven declared it Hekdesh - R. Chananya, R. Oshaya and all the Chachamim stopped using it[

1. R. Oshaya asked Rabah to ask Rav Chisda about it.
2. Rav Hamnuna: A Mishnah teaches the law!

i. (Mishnah): A doubtful case of a firstborn - whether a firstborn of a person or an animal, whether Tahor or Tamei (i.e. a donkey), to take from another, one must bring proof.
ii. (Beraisa): It is forbidden to shear or work with a doubtful firstborn.
iii. If a Kohen took the doubtful firstborn, he would have to return it (we said, to take from another, one must bring proof) - even without taking it, it is forbidden to shear or work it!

3. Objection (Rabah): That is unlike our case, for the Kedushah of a firstborn comes automatically, while in our case it must be his in order for him to be Makdish it.

(a) Support (for Rabah - R. Chananya - Beraisa): A doubtful animal (we do not know if it belongs to the Kohen - later, the case will be explained) is tithed with other animals.

1. If a Kohen who took a doubtful animal gets to keep it - how could the Yisrael make it Ma'aser, he exempts his obligation with the Kohen's property!

(b) Rejection (Abaye): (This is no proof - we can say, a Kohen who took a doubtful animal must return it;) the case is that there are only 9 other animals - no matter what you will say, there is no problem.

1. If it really belongs to the Yisrael - it can properly be Ma'aser;
2. If it really belongs to the Kohen - the Yisrael has no obligation to take Ma'aser!

(c) Retraction (Abaye): This is wrong - a doubtful animal is not tithed.

1. (Mishnah): An animal already counted (during tithing) jumped back into the pen and was mixed with the uncounted animals - they are all exempt.

i. If doubtful animals may be tithed - we should be able to tithe, no matter what the status is!
ii. If it was not yet counted - it is properly tithed now;
iii. If this is the animal that was counted - the others are exempted because when they were counted, proper Ma'aser was standing to be taken.
iv. (Rava): An animal that was counted when Ma'aser was standing to be taken is exempt (even if Ma'aser is not taken, e.g. the tenth animal died before it was called Ma'aser).

2. Rather, we must say that the Torah requires a definite tenth; (what is to us) a doubtful tenth (perhaps it was already counted) cannot be Ma'aser (even if in truth it was not already counted);

i. Also by the doubtful cases (perhaps they are the Kohen's), they are not fitting to be Ma'aser (even if in truth they belong to the Yisrael).