Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) PARTNERS ARE LIABLE EVERYWHERE ELSE (cont.)

(a) (Rava): In all the following, one might have thought that R. Ila'i exempts partners (Yisraelim) - really, he admits that they are liable.
(b) One might have thought that partners (in a field) need not take Ma'aser, because it says "Ma'aser Degancha" - not of partners;

1. "Ma'aseroseichem" obligates partners.
2. Question: What do we learn from "Degancha"?
3. Answer: It excludes a partner with a Nochri.

(c) One might have thought that partners (in an animal) need not give Matanos, because it says "Nesinah," like it says regarding Reishis ha'Gez;

1. "Me'es Zovchei ha'Zevach" obligates partners.
2. Question: Without this, why would we learn from Reishis ha'Gez to exempt them, we should learn from Terumah that they are liable (the more stringent way to learn)!
3. Answer: Indeed, they are liable even without "Me'es Zovchei ha'Zevach" - rather, this teaches Rava's law, that the Kohen may claim the Matanos from the slaughterer.

(d) One might have thought that partners (in a field) need not bring Bikurim, because it says "me'Artz*cha*" - not of partners;

1. "Kol Asher b'Artzam" obligates partners.
2. Question: What do we learn from "Artzcha"?
3. Answer: This excludes a field in Chutz la'Aretz.

(e) One might have thought that a jointly owned garment is exempt from Tzitzis, because it says "Kesus*cha*" - not of partners;

1. "Al Kanfei Vigdeihem" obligates partners.
2. Question: What do we learn from "Kesuscha"?
3. Answer: It teaches Rav Yehudah's law - a borrowed garment is exempt [mid'Oraisa; mid'Rabanan, it is only exempt] for 30 days.

(f) One might have thought that partners (in a house) need not build a Ma'akeh (rail around the roof), because it says "Gage*cha*" - not of partners;

1. "Ki Yipol" obligates partners (lest one fall from it).
2. Question: What do we learn from "Gagecha"?
3. Answer: It excludes the roof of a synagogue or Beis Medrash (since these are owned by everyone, even people overseas).

(g) Refutation #1 (Rav Bivi bar Abaye): Rava erred, like we find regarding Bechor (R. Ila'i exempts partners)!

1. (Beraisa): The Bechor of a jointly owned animal is Kodesh;
2. R. Ila'i says, it is not.
3. Question: What is R. Ila'i's reason?
4. Answer: "bi'Vkar*cha* uv'Tzon*cha*."
5. Question: But it says "u'Vechoros Bekarchem v'Tzonchem"!
6. That teaches that all of Yisrael will bring their [Kodesh] Bechoros to the Mikdash, but each is individually owned.

(h) Refutation #2 (Rav Chanina of Sura): Rava erred, like we find regarding Matanos!

1. (Beraisa): Matanos must be given from a jointly owned animal;
2. R. Ila'i exempts.
3. Question: What is his reason?
4. Answer: It says "Nesinah" regarding Matanos, like it says regarding Reishis ha'Gez - just like partners are exempt from Reishis ha'Gez, also from Matanos.

(i) (Implied refutation #3): R. Ila'i must exempt partners from Terumah - if not, he should rather learn from Terumah to obligate partners!

(a) Question: Since he learns from Terumah, Matanos should not apply in Chutz la'Aretz, just like Terumah does not apply there!
(b) Answer (R. Yosi of Naharbil): Indeed, he exempts!

1. (Beraisa - R. Ila'i): Matanos do not apply in Chutz la'Aretz; also, Reishis ha'Gez does not apply there.
2. Question: Why does he exempt Reishis ha'Gez?
3. Answer (Rava): It says "Nesinah" regarding Reishis ha'Gez, like it says regarding Terumah.
4. Question (Abaye): If so, Reishis ha'Gez should Tovel (forbid benefit from shearings before it is separated), just like Terumah is Tovel!
5. Answer (Rava): "Reishis Gez Tzoncha Titen Lo" - before it is separated, it has no effect (to forbid).

(c) Suggestion: Just like a Zar who eats Terumah is liable to death (bi'Yedei Shamayim, if he ate b'Mezid) or must pay the principal and an added fifth (if he ate b'Shogeg), the same should apply to benefit from Reishis ha'Gez!
(d) Rejection: "u'Mesu Vo...v'Yosaf Chamishiso Alav" - a fifth is added "Alav (on Terumah)," not on Reishis ha'Gez;

1. One dies "Vo (for Terumah)," not for Reishis ha'Gez.

(e) Suggestion: Just like one separates two Ma'aseros after taking Terumah, one should have to take two Ma'aseros after Reishis ha'Gez!
(f) Rejection: "Reishis" - only one separation is made.
(g) Suggestion: Just like one may not take new produce (i.e. of this year) to be Terumah to exempt old produce, one should not take new Gez to exempt old Gez!
(h) Answer: Indeed, R. Ila'i says that one may not!

1. (Beraisa #1): If a man sheared two sheep and left the shearings, and sheared them again the next two years, the shearings do not join to obligate giving Reishis ha'Gez.

i. Inference: If he sheared different sheep the following years, after shearing five different sheep, the shearings would join to obligate Reishis ha'Gez!

2. Contradiction (Beraisa #2): If a man sheared five different sheep, but not all in the same year, they do not join.
3. Resolution: We must say that Beraisa #1 is Chachamim, and Beraisa #2 is R. Ila'i (proving that he says that new Gez does not exempt old Gez).

(i) Question: Just like Terumah is taken only if the produce grew b'Chiyuv (it belonged to one who will be obligated to give it, i.e. a Yisrael), Reishis ha'Gez should apply only if the wool grew b'Chiyuv!

1. Question: What is the source that Terumah is only taken from produce if it grew b'Chiyuv?
2. Answer (Beraisa): If a Yisrael bought a Nochri's field in Surya, and there was attached produce:
3. (David ha'Melech personally conquered Surya; our Tana holds that such territory is not considered part of Eretz Yisrael (mid'Oraisa), Terumah applies there mid'Rabanan, but only if it grows on a Yisrael's land):

i. If the produce was less than a third grown (when it was bought), Terumah must be taken when it ripens;
ii. If it was a third (or more) grown when it was bought, R. Akiva says, when it ripens, Terumah must be taken on what grew afterwards;
iii. Chachamim entirely exempt it.

4. Suggestion: Perhaps Reishis ha'Gez indeed applies only if the wool grew when a Yisrael owned it! 5. Rejection (Mishnah): If one buys wool (Rashi - attached to; Rambam - from) a Nochri's sheep, it is exempt;

i. Inference: Had he bought the sheep in order to shear them he would be liable.

(j) Answer: R. Ila'i argues with the Tana of our Mishnah (he exempts in this case).

(k) Suggestion: Just like one may not separate Terumah from one species on (i.e. to exempt) a different species, also Reishis ha'Gez may not be taken on Gez of a different Min (kind, e.g. color) of sheep.

1. Question: What is the source that one may not separate Terumah from one species on another?
2. Answer (Beraisa): If Reuven had white and black figs, or two types of wheat, he may not make one Terumah or Ma'aser on the other;
3. R. Yitzchak says, Beis Shamai forbid this, Beis Hillel permit.

(l) Answer: Indeed, the same applies to Reishis ha'Gez!

1. (Mishnah): If Reuven had dark and white sheep, and he sold to Shimon wool only of the dark ones, Reuven and Shimon both give Reishis ha'Gez.

(m) Objection: The Mishnah continues, "also, if he sold wool only of the males, not of the females, they both give" - surely, this is not because they are different Minim!

1. Rather, we must say that [Reuven must give Reishis ha'Gez for all the wool,] the Mishnah *allows* Reuven to buy back [the inferior] hard wool of males and give the proper proportion of it, and to give soft wool of females proportional to the amount of soft wool;
2. Likewise, he is *allowed* to give both colors (but one could exempt the other)!

(n) Answer: Indeed (as we have already seen), the Mishnah argues with R. Ila'i.
(o) Suggestion: Just like one cannot make all the produce Terumah, we should say that one cannot make all the shearings Reishis ha'Gez!
(p) Answer: Indeed, that is R. Ila'i's opinion!

1. (Mishnah): If Reuven said "All my grain is Terumah," or "All my dough is Chalah," nothing takes effect;
2. Inference: Had he said "All my Gez is Reishis ha'Gez," it would take effect!
3. Contradiction (Beraisa): If one says, "All my Gez is Reishis ha'Gez," it does not take effect.
4. Resolution: The Mishnah is Chachamim, the Beraisa is R. Ila'i.

(q) (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Nowadays, people conduct according to the lenient opinions of three Tana'im:

1. According to R. Ila'i regarding Reishis ha'Gez;

i. (Beraisa - R. Ila'i): Reishis ha'Gez applies only in Eretz Yisrael.

2. According to R. Yehudah ben Beseira regarding learning Torah;

i. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah ben Beseira): [A man who had a seminal emission may learn Torah, because] words of Torah do not receive Tum'ah.

3. According to R. Yoshiyah regarding Kil'ayim;

i. One is liable for Kil'ai ha'Kerem only if he seeds two diverse species and a grape seed together.

(a) (Mishnah): The Matanos are more stringent than Reishis ha'Gez...
(b) Question: It should say that Reishis ha'Gez is more stringent than Matanos, for it applies to a Tereifah, but Matanos do not!
(c) Answer (Rava): Our Mishnah is R. Shimon;

1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon): A Tereifah is exempt from Reishis ha'Gez.

(d) Question: What is R. Shimon's reason?
(e) Answer #1: He learns a Gezerah Shavah "Nesinah-Nesinah" from Matanos - just like a Tereifah is exempt from Matanos, also from Reishis ha'Gez.
(f) Objection: If so, he should also learn Reishis ha'Gez from Terumah, where it also says "Nesinah";

1. He should say that Reishis ha'Gez does not apply in Chutz la'Aretz (like Terumah) - but our Mishnah says that it applies there!

(g) Answer #2: He learns "Tzon-Tzon" from Ma'aser - just like a Tereifah is exempt from Ma'aser, also from Reishis ha'Gez.
(h) Question: What is the source that a Tereifah is exempt from Ma'aser?
(i) Answer: "Everything that will pass under the staff" - this excludes a Tereifah that cannot walk (e.g. its legs were cut off above the knees - we likewise exclude all Tereifos).
(j) Question: Why don't we learn "Tzon-Tzon" from Bechor?

1. Just like Kedushas Bechor applies to a Tereifah, also Reishis ha'Gez applies!

(k) Answer: We learn from Ma'aser because it is similar to Reishis ha'Gez in seven respects - it applies to [females as well as] males, it does not apply to any Tamei species, nor to a single animal, nor to man, nor to firstborns, it does not take effect from birth, it did not apply before the Torah was given.
(l) Question: But a Bechor is similar to Reishis ha'Gez in the following respects:

1. It applies to animals orphaned at birth, to bought animals, to jointly owned animals, to [animals received for] a gift, in front (Rashi - of the Mikdash, and after the Churban; Tosfos - it is *not* Mekadesh the animal in front of or after it, whereas Kedushas Ma'aser can be Mekadesh the ninth and 11th, if they were called "Asiri');
2. It is given to a Kohen, it applies even without declaring it Kodesh, the Kohen may sell it.
3. Version #1 (Rashi): There are eight similarities to a Bechor, we should learn from it!

(m) Version #2 - Answer #1: There are only six similarities to a Bechor (the Aruch's text omits "animals received for a gift" and "even without the Mikdash"; Ritva - jointly owned animals and [animals received for] a gift are counted like one), so we learn from Ma'aser. (End of Version #2)
(n) Answer (Aruch - Answer #2): The decisive similarity is that it does not apply to firstborns.