Previous daf

1)

(a) We suggest that we learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from the Pasuk "u'mi'Gez Kivsi Yischamem" and "Reishis Gez Tzoncha" - that Reishis ha'Gez pertains only to the wool of sheep.

(b) The Beraisa learns that although the Pasuk writes "Lo Sa'avod bi'Vechor Shorecha, ve'Lo Sagoz Bechor Tzonecha" - "Lo Sa'avod" applies equally to a sheep that is a Bechor, and "Lo Sagoz" to an ox ...

(c) ... a proof that 'Gizah' pertains just as much to an ox as to a sheep, in which case we ought rather to learn "Gez" "Gez" from Bechor (to include an ox in Reishis ha'Gez) than to exclude it from the Pasuk in Iyov.

(d) So we learn from the Pasuk there ...

1. ... "Titen Lo" - 've'Lo le'Sako'', to preclude the hair of a cow from the Mitzvah (since one derives very little benefit from it).
2. ... "Gez" - to preclude the hair of a goat, which is not shorn.

(a) When we establish the last D'rashah like Rebbi Yossi (whom we will discuss shortly), we mean - that he is the one to adhere strictly to the specifications dictated by the Torah (so that the wool must be shorn, as prescribed by the Torah).

(b) Nevertheless, we refute the D'rashah, because, as we shall soon see, Rebbi Yossi cannot preclude the hair of a goat based on "Gez" - because he only preludes something that is unconventional, which cutting off the hair of goats is not.

(c) So we cite Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who learns from the Pasuk there "La'amod Leshareis" (which is written next to "Gez Tzoncha") - that the wool of Reishis ha'Gez must be fit for the Bigdei Kehunah, which sheep's wool (from which one manufactures Techeiles, dark-blue wool of sheep) is, but goats hair is not.

(d) And from "Gez" "Gez" (in Iyov) we learn like Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael in a Beraisa - who derives from there that Reishis ha'Gez must be a 'soft' wool that warms the wearer, precluding a 'hard' wool from the Mitzvah.

(a) A Beraisa precludes the wool that one shears from goats and that one removes from sheep by washing them. Based on what we learned a little earlier, we reconcile this with another Beraisa, which includes the latter in the Din of Reishis ha'Gez - by establishing the author of the former Beraisa as Rebbi Yossi (who requires the fulfillment of the Pasuk as it is written), and of the latter one, as the Rabbanan.

(b) Another Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Leket Ketzircha", 've'Lo Leket Kituf'. The problem with Rebbi Yossi, who continues 'Ein Leket Ela ha'Ba Machmas Katzir' is - that he is merely mimicking the words of the Tana Kama.

(c) We resolve the problem - by establishing the whole Beraisa like Rebbi Yossi, and adding the prefix 'she' to the Seifa 'she'Rebbi Yossi Omer ... '.

(a) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava qualifies Rebbi Yossi's ruling - by confining it to where the deviation from the Pasuk's specification is unconventional (as we already explained).

(b) And he proves it from a Beraisa, where the Tana incorporates uprooting the crops (such as one does in the case of lentils) in the Din of Leket, from "Liktzor" - and tearing off (as one does in the case of beans), from "be'Kutzrecha".

(c) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava knows that the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Yossi - because he is the Tana who otherwise requires fulfilling the Torah's specifications as they are written.

(a) Ravina supports Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava from a Mishnah in Pe'ah, where Rebbi Yossi obligates leaving Pe'ah from each row of onions that are growing in between the rows of other vegetables. According to the Rabbanan - one Pe'ah will suffice for all the rows.

(b) Onions (and garlic) are subject to Pe'ah even though other vegetables are not - because unlike other vegetables, they tend to be placed in storage.

(c) Rebbi Yossi's reason is - because he considers the rows of vegetables among the rows of onions a Hefsek (an interruption).

(d) We prove from here - that onions are subject to Pe'ah, according to Rebbi Yossi - because they are picked in the conventional manner, even though they are not harvested (Ketzirah) the way corn is, and their picking does not conform with the term "Liktzor" used by the Torah.

(a) We have no problem with Beis Shamai, who requires two sheep for the Mitzvah of Reishis ha'Gez, based on the Pasuk in Yeshayah " ... u'Sh'tei Tzon" (as we learned in our Mishnah). Rav Kahana attempts to explain the Pasuk in Shmuel "Chamesh Tzon Asuyos", to mean that five sheep make up two Mitzvos, Reishis ha'Gez and Matanos (negating Beis Shamai's proof from the Pasuk in Yeshayah).

(b) We refute the suggestion however, that "Asuyos" refers to ...

1. ... Reishis ha'Gez and Matanos - because by the same token, perhaps it refers to Bechoros and Matanos.
2. ... Bechorah and Matanos - because one sheep is already Chayav Bechorah, so who needs five?

(c) This in turn, also dispels the suggestion that "Asuyos" refers to Reishis ha'Gez and Matanos, because by the same token - one animal is already subject to Matanos, so who needs five?

(d) Rav Ashi therefore explains Beis Hillel based on the same Pasuk - to mean that "five sheep force upon their owner a new Mitzvah that has not been taught before", namely that of Reishes ha'Gez.

(a) Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi quoting his father, learns from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Arba Tzon Tachas ha'Seh" - that four sheep are important enough to obligate Reishis ha'Gez.

(b) The advantage of this Pasuk over the respective Pesukim of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel is - that whereas the Pesukim that they quote are Divrei Kabalah (from Nevi'im), his Pasuk is from the Torah.

(c) Rebbi commented on Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi's ruling - that if Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai had quoted from the Torah, and 'b'Rivi' from Nevi'im, he would have ruled like b'Rivi, how much more so now that he is the one to quote from the Torah, and they, from Nevi'im.

(d) Rebbi referred to Rebbi Yossi as 'B'rivi' - because he was one of the Gedolei ha'Dor (indeed, Chazal say about him 'Nimuko Imo' [that his reasoning is always sound]).

(a) When we query Rebbi from Mar's statement "Ein Hachra'ah Shelishis Machra'as" - we mean that we never rule like an opinion which comes to compromise (as Rebbi Yossi does here [between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel]).

(b) We would rule like a compromise opinion though - there were the initial disputants hinted the possibility of a compromise, but rejected it.

(c) We nevertheless justify Rebbi ruling like Rebbi Yossi - by attributing his ruling to a Kabalah going back directly to Chagai, Zacharyah and Mal'achi, as stated by Rebbi Yochanan.

9)

(a) The Chachamim in our Mishnah agree with Rebbi Dosa ben Horkinas who requires five sheep, only instead of each sheep needing to produce a Manah u'Pras, they require only a 'Kol-she'Hein'. Rav describes 'Kol-she'Hein' as a Manah u'Pras - in total, whereas Rebbi Dosa ben Horkinas requires each sheep to produce this amount.

(b) Rav qualifies his words - by adding that the wool should be spread out equally (seven and a half Sela'im from each sheep).

(c) Shmuel defines 'Kol-she'Hein' as - sixty Sela'im (as against the thirty-seven and a half of Rav) ...

(d) ... of which one has to give the Kohen - one Sela.

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, 'Kol-she'Hein' means six Sela'im - of which one has to give one Sela to the Kohen.

(b) The objection Ula Amar Rebbi Elazar raises to the opinion o Rebbi Yochanan (as well as to those of Rav and Shmuel) is - that 'Kol-she'Hein' is 'Kol-she'Hein', in which case one Sela-weight of wool will suffice.

(c) When we state that we have no problem with Rav and Rebbi Yochanan, only with Shmuel and Rebbi Elazar - we are referring to the Mishnah's requirement to give five Sela'im of wool, as Rebbi Yochanan specifically rules (and which Rav may well agree with), but which Shmuel and Rebbi Elazar certainly don't.

(a) We counter this with a statement of Rav and Shmuel, who both say that Reishis ha'Gez requires one sixtieth. The problem that this creates even with Rav is - that a sixtieth of a Manah u'P'ras is less than a Sela, and even if we count a Manah as being forty Sela'im (as we shall see later), it only amounts to a Sela, leaving us with a Kashya on Rav, too.

(b) We deal with the problem by quoting a statement by Rav and Shmuel, who explained - that when the Tana requires a minimum of five Sela'im, he is not referring to the absolute minimum that one must give, but to someone who has a lot of wool to give to the Kohen, who should not give less than five Sela'im-weight to each Kohen that he gives.

(c) Besides Reishis ha'Gez, Rav and Shmuel ascribe a Shi'ur of Shishim to - Terumah and Pe'ah.

(a) The Mishnah in T'rumos ascribes the Shi'ur of - a fortieth to Terumah (regarding a generous person) ...

(b) ... posing the Kashya on Rav and Shmuel - why they give a Shi'ur that pertains to a miserly person.

(c) We reject the suggestion that Rav and Shmuel are referring to the Torah Shi'ur, and the Mishnah in T'rumos to the Shi'ur de'Rabbanan, on the basis of Shmuel himself, who stated - that min ha'Torah, one grain will suffice.

(d) In view of Shmuel's latter statement - we establish the Mishnah in T'rumos by the Rabbanan's Shi'ur of Terumah d'Oraysa (corn, wine and oil), whereas Rav and Shmuel are referring to the Rabbanan's Shi'ur of Terumah de'Rabbanan (other fruit).

(a) The Mishnah in Pe'ah ...

1. ... 'Eilu Devarim she'Ein Lahem Shi'ur, ha'Pe'ah ... ' - is referring to the Din Torah, whereas Rav and Shmuel are talking about the Shi'ur de'Rabbanan.
2. ... 'Ein Pochsin le'Pe'ah mi'Shishim Af-al-Pi she'Amru ha'Pe'ah Ein Lah Shi'ur' - is referring to Eretz Yisrael, whereas Rav and Shmuel are coming to teach us the Din in Chutz la'Aretz.

(b) The Mishnah in Pe'ah does not include Terumah in its list of things that have no Shi'ur min ha'Torah - because two of the Shi'urim de'Rabbanan are already hinted in the Torah. See also Tosfos (DH 'Eilu Devarim').

(c) The Tosefta, by way of hint, learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the tax that the people had to give the Levi'im) "Tikach Echad min ha'Chamishim" - that the Shi'ur that one gives the Kohen elsewhere (as the average Shi'ur Terumah), they should now give to the Levi'im. Note also, that the acronym of Terumah is 'T'rei me'Me'ah' (two per hundred).

(d) And the Pasuk in Yechezkel "ve'Shishisam ha'Eifah me'Chomer ha'Chitim" - hints to the Shi'ur of a sixtieth (of a miserly person), since a sixth of an Eifah is half a Sa'ah, which is a sixtieth of a Chomer (thirty Sa'ah).

(a) When Rebbi Yochanan instructed Isi bar Hini to change the text (of our Mishnah) that he was teaching his son, from 'Recheilim' to 'Recheilos', the latter replied - that he was merely using the word that the Torah used.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan replied - that 'Lashon Torah Lechud Lashon Chachamim Lechud'.

(c) He was upset that Isi bar Hini referred to the Rosh Yeshivah in Bavel as Aba Aricha, and not - Rav.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan held Rav in such high esteem - because he remembered how before Rav moved to Bavel, he sat thirteen rows ahead of him, before Rebbi, and how, when Rebbi and Rav would converse in Halachah, he did not understand what they were saying.

(a) When in reply to his question, Rebbi Yochanan gave the minimum of the wool that is Chayav Reishis ha'Gez as sixty Sela'im, Isi commented - from our Mishnah, which quoting the Chachamim, gave the Shi'ur as Kol-she'Hein' (like Rebbi Elazar above).

(b) When Rebbi Yochanan responded with 'Im Kein Mah Bein Li va'Lach', he meant - that if he could answer such a question, then he was no greater than Isi?

(c) Rebbi Yochanan (who did not answer Isi directly) interpreted 'Kol she'Hein' - as La'av Davka (only since Rebbi Dosa gave a big Shi'ur, the Chachamim responded with a small one). In any event, it would require at least six Sela'im, in order to give the Kohen one Sela.

(d) When Rav Dimi arrived in Bavel from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted Rav as giving the Shi'ur as sixty Sa'ah (like Shmuel earlier), and Rebbi Yochanan Mishum Rebbi Yanai - six.

(a) When Abaye commented on Rav Dimi's statement 'Anchas Lan Chada, ve'Akshas Lan Chada', he meant - that although one of his statements was acceptable, the other one was not.

(b) He saw no discrepancy between Rav Dimi's presentation of Rebbi Yochanan - which he quoted in the name of his Rebbe Rebbi Yanai, and Rebbi Yochanan's previous ruling, which is his own opinion.

(c) Rav's two statements however, appear to clash - since 'Manah u'P'ras' is the equivalent of thirty-seven and a half Sela'im, and not sixty, as we explained above.

(d) And we resolve it - by introducing a Manah of forty Sela, as we shall now see.

(a) To prove that there is such a thing as a Manah of forty Sa'ah, we cite a Beraisa. The Tana declares Tahor a new leather flask, which still requires stitching, even though the unstitched section will not allow a pomegranate to fall out - because it does not become a K'li until it is complete.

(b) The same flask will be subject to Tum'ah, in a case where a finished flask tears, but not sufficient to allow a pomegranate to fall out - because it is already a K'li, and cannot lose its status as such until it has a hole that will let a pomegranate fall out.

(c) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov disagrees with the Tana Kama on principle - because he maintains, leather flasks are generally made to hold balls of wool and not fruit. So that is how we have to guageb their Shi'ur.

(d) And the size ball of wool that will have to be able to fall through the hole for the flask to be Tahor, according to him, is - one of ten Sela (of which there are four to a Manah), because there are forty Sa'ah in a Manah.