Previous daf

1) Rebbi Yochanan maintains that took a count there and then (in Rebbi Yehudah's presence), and decided by a majority vote that 'ha'Mekadesh be'Chelko ... , Einah Mekudeshes'. Rav says - that they still argue, and that Rebbi Yehudah still holds 'Mekudeshes'.

2)

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'Chol Minchah Asher Te'aseh ba'Tanur ... le'Chol B'nei Aharon Tihyeh" - that the Kohanim are not permitted to swap their portion in the Menachos for their friend's portion in the Zevachim.

(b) From a series of extra Pesukim in the Parshah we extend this Halachah across the board (as we shall now see). A Korban Olah ve'Yored offered a poor man who could not afford to bring a Korban Beheimah the alternative - to bring a Korban ha'Of.

(c) We might have thought that the Kohanim are permitted to swap ...

1. ... Menachos against Ofos - because, unlike Menachos against Zevachim, the Korban Olah ve'Yored offers the option of bringing the former instead of the latter (which is not the case by Menachos and Zevachim).
2. ... Ofos against Zevachim - because the blood of both is sprinkled (which is not the case by Menachos against Ofos (since Menachos do not have blood).

(d) Even once we know that the Kohanim cannot swap Ofos against Zevachim, we would still have thought that they are permitted to swap Menachos against Menachos (since both entail Avodah with the hand, whereas with Ofos and Zevachim, the former are killed by hand, the latter, with a K'li Sha'res (a knife).

(a) A Korban Beheimah is called a 'Zevach' - because it has to be Shechted with a knife (which is what the word 'Zevach' really means), whereas a Korban Of is killed with the finger-nail of the Kohen.

(b) A Minchah al ha'Machavas (which means a deep pan) - floated in a Log of oil (which most Menachos required), and was therefore soft and spongy (seeing as the fire would not burn up all the oil), whereas a Minchas Marcheshes (which means a flat pan), was hard and brittle, because the oil which spread thinly across the pan (would be burned by the fire).

(c) A Kohen may not even swap his portion in one Minchah al ha'Machavas for another (or one Minchas Marcheshes for another), as we derive from the Pasuk "va'Chareivah le'Chol B'nei Aharon Tiheyeh".

(d) And from the Pasuk "Ish ke'Achiv" we extend the prohibition of swapping one's portion in one Korban for another to all Kodshei Kodshim. We learn from ...

1. ... the Semichus "Ish ke'Achiv ... Im al Todah" - that it even extends to Kodshim Kalim too.
2. ... the word "Ish" - that a Gadol receives a portion in Kodshim (even if he is blemished), but not a Katan (even if he is not).

(a) The Beraisa currently under discussion is a Sifra. The author of a S'tam Sifra is - Rebbi Yehudah.

(b) Abaye therefore proves from this Beraisa - that Rebbi Yehudah must have retracted from his original opinion, and concedes to Rebbi Meir that a Kohen has no personal rights in his portion of Kodshim (and cannot therefore betroth a woman with it).

(a) As long as Shimon ha'Tzadik lived - any Kohen who received a k'Zayis was satisfied.

(b) The Tana of the Beraisa describes how, after Shimon ha'Tzadik's death, when the Kohanim would receive as little as a bean and were not satisfied - the Tzenu'im (those who were reserved), would withdraw, and the Gargeranim (the greedy ones) would distribute it.

(c) Rava, who interpreted 'ha'Gargeranims *Cholkin*' as swapping - tried to prove from here that Rebbi Yehudah did not retract, since he is the author of the Beraisa.

(d) He must be - because he is the only one who initially permitted a Kohen to betroth a woman with his portion of Kodshim.

(a) We refute Rava's interpretation however - by interpreting 'ha'Gargeranim Cholkin' as receiving their due portion (and grabbing that of their colleagues when it wasn't enough). This is borne out by the Seifa, which tells of the Kohen who grabbed his portion together with that of his friend.

(b) The nickname they ascribed to that Kohen for the rest of his life was - ben Chamtzan.

(c) Rabah bar Rav Shiloh learned from the Pasuk "Elokai Paltani mi'Yad Rasha mi'Kaf Me'avel *ve'Chometz", and Rabah from the Pasuk "Limdu Heitev, Dirshu Mishpat, Ishru Chamotz" - that 'Chamtzan' is synonymous with 'Chamsan' (meaning a robber).

(a) Rav Acha Brei de'Rava in the name of the Gemara learns from the Pasuk "ve'Chol Ma'asar ha'Aretz mi'Zera ha'Aretz ... la'Hashem Hu Kodesh la'Hashem" - that, according to Rebbi Meir, Ma'aser Sheini belongs to Hashem.

(b) If a Kohen (or a Yisrael who inherited from a Kohen) betroths a woman with Terumas Ma'aser, with Chalah, with Shevi'is or with Terumah, she is Mekudeshes. She is Mekudeshes with re. to ...

1. ... Terumas Ma'aser, despite the Pasuk "Kein Atrium Gam Atem Terumas *Hashem"* - because the Torah did not write "la'Hashem".
2. ... Chalah, despite the Pasuk "Yitnu *la'Hashem*" - because the Torah did not write "Kodesh".
3. ... Shevi'is, despite the Pasuk "Ki Yovel Hi *Kodesh* Tihyeh Lachem" - because the Torah did not write "Kodesh la'Hashem".
4. ... Terumah, despite the Pasuk ... "*Kodesh* Yisrael *la'Hashem*, Reishis Tevu'aso" - because (we answer initially), the Navi is referring, not to Terumah, but to Yisrael.

(c) We refute this answer however - on the grounds that, when all's said and done, the Navi is comparing Yisrael to Terumah.

(d) On account of this Kashya, Ravin Saba changed the word of Rebbi Meir's source to the words "la'Hashem Hu".

8)

(a) The problem that Shigegas Ma'aser according to Rebbi Yehudah and Shigegas Hekdesh according to Rebbi Meir have in common is - that seeing as each one holds in their respective cases that be'Meizid she is betrothed, why is she not betrothed be'Shogeg?

(b) Rebbi Ya'akov heard each one's reason from Rebbi Yochanan, but did not know which was which. The two reasons are - 1. that *she* would not consent if she knew - 2. that neither of them would.

(c) The practical difference between the two reasons is - if we asked her and she said that she did not mind, whether we need to ask him too.

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah worked out on his own volition which is which. According to him, the woman would not have agreed to be betrothed with Ma'aser, because of the trouble of taking it to Yerushalayim. The man ...

1. ... would not have minded betrothing her with Ma'aser (had he known that it was Ma'aser) - because he would transgress nothing and would gain a woman without any trouble.
2. ... as well as the woman, would have minded betrothing her with Hekdesh (had he known that it was Hekdesh) - because neither she nor he would like to know that the Hekdesh was profaned through the transaction (that an Isur was performed together with a Chiyuv Me'ilah).

(b) Rebbi Ya'akov reacted to Rebbi Yirmiyah's exsplanation - by pointing out that one could just as well say the other way round, as we shall now see.

(c) According to Rebbi Ya'akov, even the man would have objected to betrothing her with Ma'aser Sheini because of 'Unsa de'Urcha'. What he means, assuming that ...

1. ... he gave her fruit to the value of one Perutah is - that seeing as the fruit can only be eaten in Yerushalayim, it is not worth a Perutah here, in which case he will only have given her a Perutah if he accepts the liability of the journey (and an O'nes is more likely to occur with a woman than with a man).
2. ... he gave her a large amount of fruit is - that he would accept the liability, because of the fear that should she accept it and something happened on the way, he would be landed with an unhappy wife.

(d) He would not have minded betrothing her with Hekdesh - because, assuming he had no money available, he would gain a wife (and would be quite happy to pay Hekdesh later).

(a) Rava asked Rav Chisda whether - according to Rebbi Meir, who holds that a woman is not betrothed by Shigegas Hekdesh, the money goes out to Chulin.

(b) The ramifications of Rava's She'eilah are - whether the money has gone out to Chulin (and may now be spent), and whether the man is obligated to bring a Korban Me'ilah and pay a fifth.

(c) Rav Chisda replied - if the woman is not betrothed, how can the money go out to Chulin?

(d) Rav Chiya bar Avin asked Rav Chisda whether the same applies to a sale - to which he replied in the affirmative.

(a) According to Rav Chisda in Rebbi Meir - there is no Me'ilah by money of Hekdesh (only by eating Hekdesh food). Note, that Rav Chisda's opinion is based on that of Rebbi Yochanan (as quoted by Rebbi Ya'akov at the beginning of the Sugya).

(b) The Mishnah in Me'ilah discusses a case where the treasurer of Hekdesh inadvertently gave Hekdesh money to someone to look after. If he gave money that was wrapped to a storekeeper or to a private individual, and either of them used it - they would be Mo'el, and not the treasurer (because neither of the two had permission to use money that was wrapped).

(c) If he gave loose money ...

1. ... to a storekeeper - he would be permitted to use it. Consequently, it would be the treasurer who would be Mo'el when the storekeeper used it.
2. ... to a private individual - he would be forbidden to use it. Consequently, he would be Mo'el when he did.

(a) Rebbi Meir says 'Chenvani (who needs fluid money more than a private individual, but, because he often obtains goods on credit, less than a Shulchani) ke'Ba'al ha'Bayis'. Rebbi Yehudah says - 'ke'Shulachani'.

(b) A 'Shulchani' is the equivalent of a banker.

(c) We can extrapolate from Rebbi Meir that Me'ilah does pertain to spending money of Hekdesh. According to Rav Chisda, who says that it does not - Rebbi Meir is merely countering Rebbi Yehudah: 'According to me', he is saying, 'nobody is Mo'el. But according to you, won't you concede that a Chenvani is like a private individual (and he is the one who will be Mo'el)'? To which Rebbi Yehudah replied 'Chenvani ke'Shulchani' (and it is the treasurer who is Mo'el).