Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) TRADING KODSHIM

(a) (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): (A man was Mekadesh with Kodshei Kodashim or Kodshim Kalim -) the Kidushin is valid;

1. R. Yosi says, it is invalid.

(b) (R. Yochanan): They both learn from the verse "This will be to you from the Kodshei Kodashim from the fire" - R. Yehudah explains, "to you" - for all your needs;

1. R. Yosi explains, as "fire" - just as the Altar consumes its share, the share of Kohanim is for consumption.

(c) (R. Yochanan): A vote was taken - the consensus was, she is not Mekudeshes (and R. Yehudah retracted).
(d) (Rav): They still argue, neither side retracted.
(e) (Abaye): A Beraisa supports R. Yochanan.

1. (Beraisa) Question: From where do we know that Menachos (flour-offerings) may not be traded for animal offerings?
2. Answer: "Every Minchah baked in an oven...will be to all Benei Aharon".
3. Suggestion: Perhaps Menachos may not be traded for animal offerings, because a (moderately) poor person never brings a Minchah in place of an animal - but Menachos may be traded for birds, because a poor person brings a Minchah in place of birds.
4. Rejection: "(Any Minchah made) in a deep pan...will be to all Benei Aharon".
5. Suggestion: Perhaps Menachos may not be traded for birds, because they are so different (birds are living beings, Menachos are made of flour) - but birds may be traded for animals, because both are living beings.
6. Rejection: "(Any Minchah made) in a shallow pan...will be to all Benei Aharon" (the verse is not needed to teach about Menachos, it is expounded to teach about other offerings).
7. Suggestion: Perhaps birds may not be traded for animals, because animals are slaughtered with a vessel, and Melikah of birds is with the Kohen's body (fingernail) - but Menachos may be traded for other Menachos, since they are both offered by hand.
8. Rejection: "Any Minchah kneaded with oil...will be to all Benei Aharon".
9. Suggestion: Perhaps Menachos made in deep pans may not be traded for Menachos made in shallow pans, for the former are soft and the latter are hard - but Menachos of the same consistency may be traded for each other.
10. Rejection: "Or a dry Minchah (i.e. without oil) will be to all Benei Aharon".
11. Suggestion: Perhaps Kohanim may not trade Kodshei Kodashim, but they may trade Kodshim Kalim.
12. Rejection: "A man as his brother...if for a thanksgiving offering" - just as they may not trade (Menachos which are) Kodshei Kodashim, they may not trade Kodshim Kalim (e.g. thanksgiving offerings).
13. "A man" - an adult Kohen receives a share, even if he is blemished, but minors never receive.

i. A Sifra (a Beraisa expounding verses in Vayikra), if no author is mentioned, is as R. Yehudah - and he says, Kodshim may not be traded at all! (This is the support for R. Yochanan.)

(f) (Rava): A different Beraisa supports Rav!

1. (Beraisa): The modest Kohanim would refrain (from taking from the Lechem ha'Panim), the ravenous Kohanim would divide it.

(g) Rejection: No - this means, they would grab it.

1. (End of the Beraisa): One Kohen once grabbed his portion and that of another Kohen - they called him "ben Chamtzan" (the robber) until the day he died.
2. Question: From where do we know that Chamtzan is a robber?
3. Answer #1 (Rabah bar Rav Shilo): This is from the verse "Hash-m, save me...from a Chometz".
4. Answer #2 (Rabah): It is from "Support the Chamutz (oppressed one)"

(a) (Mishnah - R. Meir) If a man was Mekadesh with Ma'aser Sheni - whether or not he knew it was Ma'aser Sheni, the Kidushin is invalid; R. Yehudah says, if he knew it was Ma'aser Sheni, the Kidushin is valid.
(b) Question: From where do they learn?
(c) Answer (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): "All Ma'aser of the land, from fruits of the tree, to Hash-m, it is Kodesh to Hash-m" - Ma'aser is to Hash-m, not to Mekadesh a woman.
(d) Question: But by Terumas Ma'aser, it says "Terumas Hash-m" (and it can Mekadesh)!

1. (Mishnah): A man that is Mekadesh a woman with Terumos - she is Mekudeshes.

(e) Answer: There, it does not say Kodesh.
(f) Question: But by Shemitah, it says "It is Kodesh to you" (and it can Mekadesh)!

1. (Mishnah): A man that is Mekadesh a woman with fruit of Shemitah - she is Mekudeshes.

(g) Answer: There, it does not say 'to Hash-Me'ilah'.
(h) Question: But by Terumah, it says "Yisrael are Kodesh to Hash-m, the beginning of his crop" (and Terumah can Mekadesh)!
(i) Answer #1: The verse says that Yisrael are to Hash-m, not Terumah.

(j) Question: But the verse says that Yisrael are as Terumah, i.e. both are to Hash-m!
(k) Answer #2 (Ravin): By Ma'aser, it says "It is" - this teaches, it will always keep its status (of being to Hash-m).

(a) (Mishnah - R. Meir): If a man was Mekadesh with Hekdesh - if he knew it was Hekdesh, the Kidushin is valid; if not, not;

1. R. Yehudah says, if he knew it was Hekdesh, the Kidushin is invalid; if not, it is valid.

(b) (R. Yakov): R. Yochanan explained why R. Yehudah says that she is not Mekudeshes when he unknowingly gave her Ma'aser, and why R. Meir says that she is not Mekudeshes when he unknowingly gave her Hekdesh.

1. In 1 case, the woman would not agree if she knew; in the other case, neither party would agree if he or she knew.
2. R. Yakov: I do not know which of these applies to Ma'aser, and which to Hekdesh.
3. R. Yirmeyah: By Ma'aser, she is not happy, for now she must take the money to Yerushalayim to use it; he is happy, for he acquired a woman with money which was of limited use;

i. By Hekdesh, neither is happy that Hekdesh was profaned through them.

4. R. Yakov holds, one could say the opposite: by Ma'aser, she is not happy, for now she must take the money to Yerushalayim to use it; he is unhappy, for if the money is lost on the way, the Kidushin is invalid (or - she is Mekudeshes, but she will be upset);
5. By Hekdesh, she is not happy that Hekdesh was profaned through her, but he is happy that he acquired a woman with money which was of limited use.

(c) Question (Rava): She is not Mekudeshes - does the money become Chulin?
(d) Answer (Rav Chisda): Since she is not Mekudeshes, of course the money remains Hekdesh!
(e) Question (R. Chiya bar Avin): What is the case by a purchase (in which unknowingly, Hekdesh money was given)?
(f) Answer (Rav Chisda): Also by a purchase, it is invalid.
(g) Question (Mishnah - R. Meir): A grocer has the same law as a common man (i.e. if Reuven unknowingly gave him coins of Hekdesh, even if they were unwrapped, if the grocer uses them, he transgresses Me'ilah);

1. R. Yehudah says, his law is as a moneychanger (he transgresses Me'ilah only if the coins were wrapped - if they were unwrapped, Reuven transgresses, for he knows that the grocer will use them).
2. They only argue regarding the status of a grocer - but all agree that one who spends Hekdesh coins, he transgresses Me'ilah!

(h) Answer: R. Meir does not hold this way - in that Mishnah, he addresses R. Yehudah on R. Yehudah's terms.

1. R. Meir: I hold, even if he spent them, he did not transgress Me'ilah - granted, you argue on this, but at least admit that a grocer is as a common man (so Reuven is exempt)!
2. R. Yehudah: No, a grocer is as a moneychanger.