Previous daf

1)

(a) The Mishnah in Chalah lists the differences between Terumah and Bikurim on the one hand, and Ma'aser Sheini on the other. If a Zar or a Kohen Tamei eats Terumah and Bikurim, he is Chayav Miysah, and if a Zar eats them be'Shogeg, he pays an extra fifth, neither of which applies to Ma'aser Sheini. The Tana nevertheless needs to continue 've'Asurim le'Zarim' - (not as an intrinsic Chidush by Terumah and Bikurim, but) because of the Seifa 'Mah she'Ein Kein be'Ma'aser, which is permitted Lechatchilah to be eaten by Zarim.

(b) The ramifications of 've'Hein Nechsei Kohen' are - that the Kohen can betroth a woman with them.

(c) Ma'aser is not 'Mamon Kohen' - because, like Hekdesh, it is Mamon Gavohah (it belongs to Hashem), according to Rebbi Meir, who is the author of this Mishnah.

(d) The former also require washing one's hands before eating and 'Ha'arev Shemesh'. Ma'aser does not require ...

1. ... washing one's hands before eating it - because although S'tam hands are considered Sheini le'Tum'ah mi'de'Rabbanan, that does not affect fruit (even Ma'aser fruit), because Mar said that someone who does so is conceited (though this statement does not extend to bread -even of regular Chulin).
2. ... Ha'arev Shemesh - because we learn from Pesukim that a Tamei person who Tovels in a Mikveh is permitted to eat Ma'aser straightway.

(a) The Tana also differentiates between the above as regards Bitul. In order to become Bateil - Terumah and Bikurim must fall in at least a hundred times itself of Chulin.

(b) Assuming that in contrast, Ma'aser is Bateil be'Rov, the Tana cannot be referring to S'tam Ma'aser, either after it enters Yerushalayim, or before it reaches there - since he is able to either eat it or redeem it (respectively), and a Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin does not become Bateil.

(c) The Tana is referring to less than a P'rutah's worth of Ma'aser (which can neither be eaten nor redeemed, either because it became Tamei or for other reasons that we shall see during the course of the Sugya).

(d) The problem with this Mishnah, according to Rebbi Chiya ('Ma'aser Sheini she'Ein Bo Shaveh P'rutah ... ') is - that seeing as he permits redeeming less than a P'rutah's worth of Ma'aser, it remains a Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin, so why does it become Bateil?

(a) We initially reject the proposal that Ma'aser is different than Terumah and Bikurim inasmuch as it is not Bateil at all - on the grounds that the Tana lists only the leniencies of Ma'aser, not the stringencies.

(b) And we refute that reason on the grounds - that he inserts the case of 've'Hein Nechsei Kohen', which is a Chumra regarding Ma'aser.

(c) We know that the Tana does not mean that Ma'aser is not Bateil at all - because another Beraisa specifically states that Ma'aser is Bateil be'Rov.

(a) That Beraisa also establishes the Mishnah by Ma'aser Sheini that is less than a Shaveh P'rutah which is Tamei (see Maharsha on Tosfos 'Lehader ve'Le'aylei'). Alternatively, the Mishnah speaks when - it had entered Yerushalayim and been taken out again, rendering it unfit to eat and unfit to be redeemed.

(b) The Kashya (on the first explanation) why he should not be able to redeem it on an old used coin (like Rebbi Chiya). We initially answer - that he simply does not have such a coin (and 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin' applies only when one has all the means to be Matir it).

(c) He cannot take a new coin and combine the Ma'aser that he has with ...

1. ... other Ma'aser and redeem them together - because that Ma'aser is d'Oraysa, whereas the one in question is only de'Rabbanan (since Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin is Bateil d'Oraysa), and one cannot redeem what is d'Oraysa together with what is de'Rabbanan.
2. ... D'mai (which is also only de'Rabbanan), because the Chachamim decreed that this too, cannot be redeemed together with the Ma'aser in question, since one might then go on to redeem a d'Oraysa together with a de'Rabbanan.

(a) We ask why he cannot then redeem two P'rutos worth of Ma'aser, on one and a half of two P'rutos, and the current half P'rutah of Ma'aser, on the remaining half P'rutah. We reject this suggestion however, on the grounds - that the one P'rutah would then redeem the P'rutah's worth of Ma'aser, and the other half would simply remain unredeemed.

(b) We cannot ...

1. ... initially combine the half P'rutah together with the one and half P'rutos of Ma'aser - since, as we already explained, d'Oraysa and de'Rabbanan cannot be redeemed together.
2. ... redeem the one and a half P'rutos of Ma'aser on to an Isar, and the half P'rutah in question on to part of what remains (there are eight P'rutos in an Isar) - because Chazal forbade that too, in case one comes to bring two P'rutos instead of an Isar.

(c) That is why it is not a Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin. Alternatively, we established the Mishnah when the Ma'aser entered Yerushalayim and was taken out again. Nor can the mixture containing the Ma'aser simply be returned to Yerushalayim and eaten there - because the Tana speaks when it (too) became Tamei.

6)

(a) We just explained that the mixture containing the Ma'aser cannot simply be returned to Yerushalayim and eaten there, because the Tana speaks when it (too) became Tamei. Rebbi Elazar Darshened from the Pasuk "Ki Lo Suchal Se'eiso" - that Ma'aser Sheini that became Tamei may be redeemed even in Yerushalayim (since it cannot be eaten, and 'Se'eis' also has connotations of eating, as we find in Miketz "Va'yisa Mas'os me'Eis Panav").

(b) We therefore establish the Mishnah (not by the Ma'aser itself, but) by food that was purchased with the money of Ma'aser in Yerushalayim - according to Rebbi Yehudah, who holds in the Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini that food that is bought with money of Ma'aser and that became Tamei, cannot be redeemed.

(c) According to the Chachamim, even Ma'aser that is bought with Ma'aser Sheini money can be redeemed. Rebbi Yehudah's reason for saying that it cannot is - because its 'Kedushah' (which is third-hand, so to speak) is too weak to be redeemed.

(d) We reject this explanation however, on the grounds that - if the author was Rebbi Yehudah, then the Beraisa would not have needed to establish the Mishnah specifically when the Ma'aser entered Yerushalayim and was taken out. According to Rebbi Yehudah, even if it had remained in Yerushalayim, it would need to be buried, as we just explained (and it could therefore not be classified as a 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin').

(a) So we establish it by Tahor Ma'aser, and the reason that one cannot return the Ma'aser to Yerushalayim and eat it there is - because 'Yatza' means that the walls of Yerushalayim fell. Consequently, the Ma'aser could neither be eaten (because the Torah prescribes "Lifnei Hashem") nor redeemed (because, having entered whilst the walls were standing ['Kaltuhu Mechitzos'], they can only be redeemed within the Mechitzos).

(b) Rava's statement poses a problem however. Because he said 'Mechitzos li'K'lot de'Rabbanan' - meaning that min ha'Torah, the fact that the Ma'aser entered the walls of Yerushalayim, do not prevent it from being redeemed once it leaves (and the prohibition is only de'Rabbanan).

(c) We now extrapolate from this - that if there are no walls, Chazal did not decree (in other words, the decree was that, the Ma'aser must be returned to within the walls to be redeemed, but will not apply if the walls are no longer standing). This poses a Kashya on the current explanation of the Mishnah - inasmuch as it would still be a case of 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin'.

(d) We counter this Kashya - with the principle 'Lo P'lug', meaning that Chazal did not in fact differentiate here between whether the Mechitzos are standing or not.

(a) Rav Huna bar Yehudah Amar Rav Sheishes establishes the second reason in the Beraisa ('ve'she'Nichnas li'Yerushalayim ve'Yatza') not as an independent reason (as we learned until now), but as an addition to the first one ('she'Ein Bo Shaveh P'rutah'). The Kashya that caused the Tana to add it - was the Kashya from Chizkiyah (Why can he not redeem the Ma'aser on a used coin?)

(b) He goes on to learn the Sugya as the first Lashon learned it (ending with 'Lo P'lug'). The Tana needs to establish it by less than a Shaveh P'rutah (not because the Halachah will differ if the Ma'aser is worth a P'rutah, but) - because we might otherwise have thought that the Din of 'Kaltuhu Mechitzos' does not apply to Ma'aser that is less than a P'rutah (because it is not Chashuv).

(c) According to what we just thought - if less than a P'rutah's worth of Ma'aser in Yerushalayim in the time of the Beis Hamikdash got mixed up with Chulin after the walls had fallen, it would not become Bateil, because it can be redeemed and is therefore a Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin'.

(a) The Beraisa Darshens from the Pasuk "Im Ga'ol Yig'al Ish *mi*'Ma'asro" - that Ma'aser that is worth less than a P'rutah cannot be redeemed (initially [on a new coin]).

(b) When Rav says 'Ein *Bo*', he means - that as long as the Ma'aser itself is worth a P'rutah, it can be redeemed (even though the fifth is not).

(c) Rav Asi says - 'Bo u've'Chomsho', which means that not only must the Ma'aser be worth a P'rutah, but so must the fifth (in which case, one cannot redeem Ma'aser that is worth less than four P'rutos (according to one side of the She'eilah that follows).

(d) Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish respectively, argue over the same point as Rav and Rav Asi.

11)

(a) We ask whether the Chomesh which the Torah obligates the owner to add when he redeems his Ma'aser Sheini means a Chomesh 'mi'Legav' or 'mi'Lebar'. A Chomesh ...

1. ... 'mi'Legav' means - literally a fifth of the given amount.
2. ... 'mi'Lebar' means - a fifth of the total including the fifth (which we would refer to as a quarter).

(b) The basic difference between an owner who redeems what he was Makdish and a stranger who redeems it is - that the owner adds a fifth, whereas a stranger does not (and the same will apply to Ma'aser Sheini).

(a) The Beraisa discusses who has to redeem the Ma'aser, in the event that both the owner and a stranger offer to redeem the owner's Hekdesh. In the event that they both offer the same price, the owner has the first right - because after adding a fifth, he will be paying more than the stranger.

(b) Should the owner offer to pay twenty Zuz, and the stranger twenty-one, the owner pays - twenty-six (the twenty that he bid plus a fifth, and the extra Zuz that the stranger offered).

(c) Despite the fact that we make him pay the extra Sela that the stranger offered, he does not pay twenty-six and a fifth of a Sela - because he does not need to pay a fifth on the stranger's offer.

(d) If the owner offers twenty Zuz, and the stranger twenty-five - the owner pays thirty (and the Sugya in Erchin discusses why this is so).

(a) We prove from this Beraisa - that a fifth really means a quarter (Chomesh mi'Lebar).

(b) And the proof is - from the fact that the Tana gives the Chomesh of twenty Zuz as twenty-five (and not twenty-four).