Previous daf

1)

(a) When Ravin asked his Rebbes whether 'Mesadrin le'Ba'al-Chov' from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Michah" Michah", they answered nothing.

(b) He did however, receive a clear indication from the answer to a She'eilah that was asked in the Beis ha'Medrash regarding Hekdesh - namely, whether we are Mesader by Hekdesh.

(c) We do not assess the Noder according to his wealth - because that is a concept ('Heseg Yad') that is written by Erchin exclusively (though we do find it in certain areas of Kodshim, such as a Korban Oleh ve'Yored).

(d) Rebbi Ya'akov in the name of bar Pada (or Rebbi Yirmiyah in the name of Ilfa) resolved the She'eilah with a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a Ba'al-Chov, who has to return the Mashkon, yet 'Ein Mesadrin' (after thirty days, according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel). In that case, Hekdesh, which does not return a Mashkon, should certainly not be subject to Sidur.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan does not argue with bar Pada with regard to a Ba'al-Chov. He does however, learn from the Pasuk "Ish Ki Yafli *Neder be'Erk'cha* Nefashos" - that the Neder of Hekdesh is compared to that of Erchin, in which case the Din will be 'Mesadrin'.

(b) bar Pada learns from that Pasuk - the Din of Nidun bi'Chevodo', meaning that if someone promises to give the value of his heart (or of any other limb without which he could not live) to Hekdesh ('Dami Alai'), he is obligated to give his full value (assessed like an Eved) to Hekdesh.

(c) If one promises to give the value of his leg to Hekdesh - then we assess him as an Eved with his leg and without it, and he pays the difference to Hekdesh.

(d) We try to learn 'Mesadrin' by Ba'al-Chov with a 'Kal va'Chomer from Erchin - from the fact that we hold 'Ein Machzirin' by Erchin, yet we say 'Mesadrin'. In that case, by a Ba'al Chov, where we hold 'Machzirin', we should certainly say 'Mesadrin'.

(a) We counter this proof (Mesadrin by Ba'al-Chov with a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Erchin) however, from the Pasuk (in connection with Erchin) "ve'Im Mach *Hu* me'Erkecha" - "Hu", 've'Lo Ba'al-Chov'.

(b) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah (who holds 'Mesadrin le'Ba'al-Chov' see also Tosfos 've'Idach']), learns from this Pasuk - that in order to pay a lower rate by Erchin, he must be poor from beginning to end (but should he be wealthy at the time the Kohen assesses him, he becomes obligated to pay the Erech of a rich man).

(a) We try and learn the Din of Machzirin (returning the Mashkon) by Hekdesh (where we hold 'Mesadrin') with a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Ba'al-Chov (where we hold 'Ein Mesadrin'), yet the Din is 'Machzirin', 'Kal va'Chomer' by Hekdesh.

(b) We initially refute this proof from the Pasuk "ve'Shachav be'Salmaso u'Veracheka" (the reason for Machzirin) - because Hekdesh does not require a B'rachah (negating the 'Kal va'Chomer').

(c) We reject this argument however, from the Pasuk in Eikev "ve'Achalta ve'Sava'ata u'Verachta", from which we learn that Hekdesh *does* require a B'rachah. We finally explain why 'Ein Machzirin' by Hekdesh from the Pasuk "u'Lecha Tih'yeh Tzedakah" - because Hekdesh certainly does not need Tzedakah (because everything belongs to Hashem anyway).

5)

(a) Rabah bar Avuhah met Eliyahu ha'Navi in a Beis ha'Kevaros. When he asked Eliyahu ...

1. ... whether 'Mesadrin le'Ba'al-Chov' or not, he replied - with the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Michah" "Michah", from which we learn 'Mesadrin'.
2. ... from where the Mishnah in T'rumos learns that a naked person should not separate Terumah, he replied - with the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "ve'Lo Yir'eh B'cha Ervas Davar", which teaches us that talking holy things is prohibited in front of nakedness. Consequently, the separation is not intrinsically forbidden, but because one loses the B'rachah.
3. ... what he was doing in a Beis ha'Kevaros, seeing as he was a Kohen - he replied with Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, who declares that the graves of Nochrim are not subject to Tum'as Ohel (although they are subject to Tum'as Negi'ah [touching]).

(b) Rebbi Shimon's source for this ruling (based on the fact that the Torah opens the Parshah of Tum'as Ohel with the words "*Adam* Ki Yamus be'Ohel") is the Pasuk in Yechezkel - "va'Eten Tzoni Tzon Mar'isi *Adam* Atem", from which Rebbi Shimon Darshens 'Atem Keruyin "Adam", ve'Ein Ovdei-Kochavim Keruyin Adam'.

(a) Rabah bar Avuhah knew that Eliyahu was a Kohen - because of the tradition (of which many hold) that Pinchas became Eliyahu, and Pinchas of course, was a Kohen.

(b) When Eliyahu asked Rabah bar Avuhah whether he had not learned the Beraisa in Taharos that he quoted him he replied - that he had not completed the four Sedarim (Mo'ed, Nashim, Nezikin and Kodshim), let alone Taharos (which was not applicable at that time).

(c) Mo'ed, Nashim and Nezikin (as opposed to Zera'im and Taharos) were certainly applicable. In fact, Kodshim was applicable too - because we have learned in Menachos that when Talmidei-Chachamim study Kodshim, it is as if they were sacrificing them in the Beis-Hamikdash.

(d) Rabah bar Avuhah had not completed the four Sedarim - due to dire poverty.

(a) To alleviate Rabah bar Avuhah's situation - Eliyahu took him to Gan Eden, and told him to spread out his coat and help himself to some of the leaves that were growing there.

(b) What caused the latter to throw the leaves away - was the Heavenly Voice that announced that he was receiving the reward that was stored away for him in the World to Come, already in this world.

(c) He nevertheless became rich - when he sold his coat, which had absorbed some of the smell of Gan Eden ...

(d) ... for twelve thousand Dinrim. This he divided among his sons-in-law.

(a) We query the Beraisa which extrapolates from the Pasuk "ve'Im Ish Ani Hu Lo Sishkav ba'Avoto", 'ha Ashir Shachiv', which we initially understand to mean - that although one is forbidden to sleep on the bed-clothes of a poor man, one may do so on those of someone who is rich.

(b) The problem with this explanation is - why this should be permitted, since it constitutes Ribis.

(c) So we finally explain that it refers to - returning the article, which is not necessary if the debtor is a rich man, because he does not need it.

(a) The Beraisa states 'ha'Malveh es Chaveiro, Eino Rashai Le'mashkeno, ve'Eino Chayav La'hachzir Lo, ve'Over al Kol ha'Sheimos Halalu'. This last phrase refers to - "Hashev Tashiv", "ve'Lo Sishkav ba'Avoto" and "ve'ad Bo ha'Shemesh Teshivenu Lo".

(b) The Beraisa states 'ha'Malveh es Chaveiro, Eino Rashai Le'mashkeno, ve'Eino Chayav La'hachzir Lo, ve'Over al Kol ha'Sheimos Halalu'. Rav Sheishes amends 've'Eino Chayav Le'hachzir Lo' to read 'Chayav La'hachzir Lo', and it refers to where he did take the Mashkon. According to him, the continuation of the Beraisa 've'Over al Kol ha'Sheimos Halalu' - pertains to the Seifa (where he did take the Mashkon).

(a) Rava objects to Rav Sheishes explanation - because he amended 've'Eino Chayav La'hachzir Lo' to 've'Chayav Le'hachzir Lo', which he considered a Dochek (a pushed answer).

(b) He therefore prefers to add a piece to the Beraisa, which begins with the same text as Rav Sheishes, but which continues 'Bameh Devarim Amurim She'Mashkeno she'Lo be'Sha'as Halva'aso, Aval be'Sha'as Halva'aso, Eino Chayav Le'hachzir Lo; ve'Over ... '.

(c) And he explains the Tana's final phrase 've'Over ... on the Reisha (in the same way as Rav Sheishes does, only Rav Sheishes refers to it as the Seifa).

(d) The Tana knows that the Mitzvah of returning a Mashkon does not extend to a Mashkon be'Sha'as Halva'ah - because "Im Chavol Sachbol", which is the opening phrase of the Halachah under discussion, implies against the will of the debtor, which does not apply to a Mashkon be'Sha'as Halva'ah.

(a) The Pasuk ...

1. ... "Ad Bo ha'Shemesh Teshivenu Lo" implies - that he must return the article in the morning, until the evening when he may take it back.
2. ... "Hashev Tashiv Lo es he'Avot ke'Vo ha'Shemesh" - implies that he returns it at sunset (and takes it back in the morning).

(b) When Rav Shizbi quoted a Beraisa "Ad Bo ha'Shemesh Teshivenu Lo", 'Zu K'sus Laylah'. "Hashev Tashiv Lo es he'Avot ke'Vo ha'Shemesh", 'Zu K'sus Yom' - Rava queried why on earth the debtor would need a night garment during the day, and a day garment during the night.

(c) It was unnecessary to erase the Beraisa, Rava told Rav Shizbi because K'sus Laylah' and 'K'sus Yom' mean (not a day garment and a night garment, as we thought, but) - a garment that needs to be returned in the day and one that needs to be returned in the night, respectively.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan rules that if the creditor returned the Mashkon, and the debtor then died - the former is even permitted to strip the Mashkon off the Yesomim's backs.

(b) This ruling does not clash with the principle that the Metaltelin of Yesomim are not Meshubad to the Ba'al-Chov - because of a second principle 'Ba'al-Chov Koneh Mashkon', which overrides it, because it makes him the owner, and not the Yesomim.

(a) Rebbi Meir in the Beraisa asks why, after taking a Mashkon, the creditor is obligated to return it. This Kashya makes no sense - because the Torah specifically obligates him to return it. So what is there to ask?

(b) We amend Rebbi Meir's Kashya to read that having returned it, why does he take it back, to which he answers - so that Shevi'is should not cancel the debt and so that it should not have the Din of Metaltelin in the Reshus of the Yesomim.

(c) This implies - that if he did not take it back, it would have the Din of 'Metalteli de'Yasmi' (which are not Meshubad to the Ba'al-Chov), a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan.

(d) Rav Ada bar Masna answers that, seeing as the Beraisa anyway needs to be amended, we may as well amend it further. So he amends it to read - 've'Chi me'Achar she'Machzirin, Lamah Memashkenin Me'ikara ... ', which now conforms with Rebbi Yochanan's ruling.