Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) BUYING ANIMALS WITH MA'ASER MONEY

(a) (Mishnah): We may not buy animals with (redemption) money of Ma'aser;

1. If a person bought unintentionally - the sale is undone (he gets back his money, the seller gets back the animal);
2. If a person bought intentionally - he must bring the animal to Yerushalayim and eat it there (as Ma'aser, i.e. in Taharah).
3. (R. Yehudah): This is when he intended to buy a Shelamim - but if he intended to spend the money as Chulin (to buy a Chulin animal), whether or not he knew that the money was Ma'aser, the sale is undone.

(b) Question (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If he knew that the money was Ma'aser, she is Mekudeshes.
(c) Answer #1 (R. Elazar): A woman knows that Ma'aser money cannot be profaned by acquiring her - she intends to eat the money as Ma'aser in Yerushalayim. (So this is as a:2, not as a:3.)
(d) Question (R. Yirmeyah): But a person knows that Ma'aser money cannot be profaned by buying a Tamei animal, slaves or land;

1. (Mishnah): One may not buy a Tamei animal, slaves or land with Ma'aser money, even in Yerushalayim;
2. If he did buy, he must set aside money equal to what he paid and eat it as Ma'aser. (According to R. Elazar, this should not be needed, for the seller will eat the money as Ma'aser!)

(e) Answer #2 (R. Yirmeyah): Most people do not know that Ma'aser money cannot be profaned by acquiring a wife or a Tamei animal;

1. The Mishnah that a woman is Mekudeshes through Ma'aser money) is the case of a learned woman who knows the law.

(f) Question (Mishnah): If he did buy, he must set aside money and eat it as Ma'aser - we should say, the sale is undone (as in Mishnah (a)!)
(g) Answer (Shmuel): the case is, the seller fled.

(h) Inference: If the seller was around, we would fine him (i.e. undo the sale).
(i) Question: It is more reasonable to fine the buyer, and say that even if the seller is around, the buyer must set aside money and eat it as Ma'aser!
(j) Answer: A thief would not steal if people would not buy stolen property (so the buyer deserves to be fined).
(k) Question: If the thief would not steal, people could not buy from him (so the thief should be fined)!
(l) Answer: They are both culpable; the fined is levied at the one holding the stolen property.

(a) (Mishnah): A man was Mekadesh with any of the following - she is not Mekudeshes:

1. Orlah; Kilayim of a vineyard; an ox sentenced to be killed; a beheaded calf (that atones for a murder); birds used in the Taharah of a Tzaru'a; the hair of a Nazir; a firstborn donkey; meat cooked with milk; Chulin that was slaughtered in the Mikdash.

(b) If he sold any of these and was Mekadesh with the money, she is Mekudeshes.
(c) (Gemara) Question: From where do we know that Orlah is forbidden to benefit from?
(d) Answer (Beraisa): "Arelim you will not eat" - this would imply, one may benefit from Orlah;

1. "You will treat its Orlah as Orlah" - this teaches, one may not benefit from it, one may not dye with it or burn a lamp with it.

(e) (Mishnah): Kilayim of a vineyard.
(f) Question: From where do we know that Kilayim is forbidden to benefit from?
(g) Answer #1 (Chizkiyah): "Lest Tukdash" - we read this, 'Lest Tukad Esh (it will be burned)'.
(h) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): It means, 'Lest it will become Kodesh'.
(i) Objection: If so, if it is sold, the prohibition should transfers to the money (and the Kilayim becomes permitted), just as Kodesh!

1. Rather, we must learn as Chizkiyah.

(j) (Mishnah): An ox sentenced to be stoned.
(k) Question: From where do we know that is forbidden to benefit from it?
(l) Answer (Beraisa): "You will stone the ox" - since it is a Neveilah, it is forbidden to eat it;

1. "You will not eat its meat" teaches, even if it was slaughtered, it may not be eaten.
2. Question: From where do we know that one may not benefit from it?
3. Answer (ben Zoma): "The owner is clean" - like someone that was wiped clean of his money, and gets no benefit from them.
4. Question: How do we know that "You will not eat its meat" applies when it was slaughtered?

i. Perhaps when it is slaughtered, it may be eaten; the verse speaks of when it was stoned, as R. Avahu!
ii. (R. Avahu): Whenever the Torah says "It will not be eaten" or "Do not eat", this also forbids getting benefit, unless the Torah permits benefit, as it did by a Neveilah.

5. Answer #1: R. Avahu's law only applies when "Do not eat" taught that it may not be eaten; here, we already know that it may not be eaten because it must be stoned (and becomes a Neveilah).

i. If it was coming to forbid benefit - it should have said, "Do not benefit"(since we already know it may not be eaten).

6. Answer #2: If it was coming to forbid benefit, it should have said only, "It will not be eaten";

i. "Its meat" is extra, to teach that it may not be eaten even if it was slaughtered (as regular meat).

7. Question (Mar Zutra): Granted, we learn that even when slaughtered, it may not be eaten - but perhaps that is only if a was slaughtered with a sharp stone (which is as stoning)!

i. But the verse does not speak about if it was slaughtered with a knife!

8. Answer: The Torah did not say that slaughter must be with a knife. (Therefore, slaughter with a stone is also considered slaughter, not stoning.)

i. (Beraisa): Anything (sharp) may be used to slaughter - a rock, glass, a reed...

(m) Question: Since "It will not be eaten" teaches that one may not eat or benefit from it - what do we learn from "The owner is clean"?
(n) Answer: To forbid benefit from the skin.

1. One might have thought, "Its meat will not be eaten", but one may benefit from the skin - we hear, this is not so.

(o) The following Tana'im learn from "The owner is clean" that (the owner of) a Tam (an unestablished gorer) does not pay even half ransom (if the animal kills a person), and that even a Mu'ad does not obligate its master to pay for fetuses it caused to be aborted;

1. Question: From where do they know that one may not benefit from the skin?
2. Answer: "(You will not eat) Es its meat" - the word Es includes what is secondary to the meat, i.e. the skin.
3. The other Tana'im do not expound "Es".

(p) (Beraisa): R. Shimon ha'Amsoni used to expound every Es in the Torah (to include something). Regarding "You will fear Es Hash-m", he found nothing to include.

1. His Talmidim: If so, perhaps the other words Es also should not be expounded!
2. R. Shimon: Indeed, I retract them all! Just as I will receive reward for what I expounded (a the time, I believed it was true), I will be rewarded for refusing to expound.
3. R. Akiva: "You will fear Es Hash-m" - this includes Chachamim.