Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa forbids the purchase of an animal with the money of Ma'aser Sheini - outside Yerushalayim.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Tzarta ha'Kesef be'Yadcha" - that it is money that one takes to Yerushalayim, and not animals.

(c) Alternatively, the prohibition is pureful de'Rabbanan - a decree in case the animal becomes weak as a result of the trip.

(a) If one did redeem Ma'aser Sheini be'Meizid with an animal, the Tana validates the transaction, and the animal is taken to Yerushalayim. If he redeemed it be'Shogeg ( without realizing that the money was money of Ma'aser Sheini), the money must be returned to the purchaser.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah qualifies the Din re. someone who redeemed the animal be'Meizid - by restricting it to where he expressly purchased the animal to bring as a Shelamim, but not if he redeemed it in order to transfer the money to Chulin.

(c) If that was his intention, then 'Bein be'Shogeg, Bein be'Meizid Yachzeru Damim li'Mekomam'. The reason for this in the case of ...

1. ... Shogeg is - because it is a Mekach Ta'us (an invalid sale).
2. ... Meizid - because we penalize the seller.

(d) If he intended to transfer the money of Ma'aser Sheini to Chulin, we could not say 'Bein be'Shogeg ... '. When we say 'he intended ... ' - we really mean that he deliberately purchased a Chulin animal (which automatically transfers the Ma'aser to Chulin).

(a) Rebbi Elazar reconciles this Rebbi Yehudah ('Yachzeru Damim li'Mekomam'), with Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, who says (re. Ma'aser Sheini) 'be'Meizid Kidesh' - by suggesting that a woman knows that the money of Ma'aser Sheini does not go out to Chulin on account of her. Consequently, she is bound to take it to Yerushalayim and spend it there.

(b) The Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini says - that one may not purchase a non-Kasher animal, Avadim or land with the money of Ma'aser Sheini, even in Yerushalayim.

(c) If someone did - he is obligated to designate the equivalent amount of money and transfer the Kedushah of the Ma'aser Sheini money (wherever it is) onto it.

(d) Assuming that a regular woman does not know that Ma'aser money does not go out to Chulin on account of her, any more than an ordinary person does not know that it does not go out to Chulin through a non-Kasher animal, Avadim or land, we adjust Rebbi Elazar's interpretation of 'be'Meizid Kidesh' in our Mishnah - by establishing it by a woman who is the wife of a Talmid-Chacham, who *does* know.

(a) The Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini says 'Im Lakach, Yochal ke'Negdan'. To explain why the Tana does not say 'Yachzeru Damim li'Mekomam', like the Tana of the Beraisa of 'Ein Lokchin Beheimah ... ' - Shmuel establishes the Mishnah when the seller fled together with the money.

(b) We object to the reasoning that (there where the seller did not flee) we penalize *him* (rather than the purchaser) because 'It is not the mouse that steals, but the hole!' - on the grounds that if there was no mouse, what harm could the hole do?'

(c) We conclude that we penalize specifically the seller - because we always penalize the person who is holding the Isur (which in this case, is the Ma'aser-Sheini money).

5)

(a) Our Mishnah states 'ha'Mekadesh be'Orlah, bi'K'lai ha'Kerem, be'Shor ha'Niskal ... 'Einah Mekudeshes'. What all of these have in common is - that they are all Isurei Hana'ah.

(b) If he sells them and betroths her with the money, the betrothal is valid - because the Isur is not transferred to the money?

(c) We learn the Isur Achilah from the Pasuk "Areilim Lo Ye'achel". From "va'Araltem Orlaso" we learn - the Isur Hana'ah.

(d) In spite of the insignificant benefit that one derives from sight (see Tosfos DH 'Minayin'), painting with dyes extracted from the shells of Orlah is included in the prohibition.

(a) Chizkiyah Darshens the Pasuk "Pen Tikdash ha'Mele'ah" - by way of the acronym 'Pen Tukad Eish', to teaches us that Orlah is Asur be'Hana'ah.

(b) We refute Rav Ashi's acronym 'Pen Yihyeh Kodesh' - on the grounds that, if Orlah derived from Hekdesh, the Isur should be transferable into money, whereas we learned in our Mishnah that it is not.

(a) Seeing as it is obvious that a stoned ox is forbidden to eat, we learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Lo Ye'achel es Besaro" - that even if one Shechted it after Beis-Din ruled that it had to be stoned, it is forbidden to eat.
2. ... "u'Ba'al ha'Shor Naki" - that it is Asur be'Hana'ah, too.

(b) Shimon ben Zoma, in a Beraisa, interpret this latter phrase - 'like one person says to another 'So and so went 'Naki' (clean) from his property, and has no benefit from them whatsoever'.

(a) Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Elazar says that "Lo Ye'achel, Lo Sochal and Lo Sochlu" (wherever they occur) incorporate an Isur Hana'ah. Based on this D'rashah, we propose to establish "u'Ba'al ha'Shor Naki" - where the owner Shechted the ox after it was stoned (and forbidden to eat anyway.

(b) Had we accepted this proposal, we would use "u'Ba'al ha'Shor Naki" for something else (as we shall see shortly). On the other hand - we would extrapolate that had the animal been Shechted rather than stoned, it would be Mutar be'Hana'ah.

(c) We refute the proposal however, on the grounds - that Rebbi Avahu's principle only applies where "Lo Ye'achel" incorporates an Isur Hana'ah together with an Isur Achilah, but not where it refers to an Isur Hana'ah only.

(d) This is because - had the Torah wanted to forbid only Hana'ah - it would have written "Lo Yehaneh", or even "Lo Ye'achel", but not "es Besaro".

(a) According to the second explanation, we learn from "es Besaro" - that even though he turned the animal into flesh [by Shechting it], it is still forbidden.

(b) We reject the suggestion that "u'Ba'al ha'Shor Naki" comes to forbid the animal when he Shechts it with a sharp strip of cane (which is a kind of Sekilah), but not if he Shechts it with a knife - on the grounds that the Torah does not distinguish between a knife and a strip of cane, and that both are therefore considered a proper Shechitah.

(c) The Beraisa - permits Shechting with a piece of rock, a piece of glass and a strip of cane.

(a) Now that we learn both the Isur Achilah and the Isur Hana'ah from "Lo Ye'achel", we learn from "u'Ba'al ha'Shor Naki" - 'Hana'as Oro' (that one may not even derive benefit from the animal's skin).

(b) We would have otherwise thought that it is permitted - because the Pasuk "ve'Lo Ye'achel es Besaro", implies that the skin is permitted.

(c) One of the two other things that we may learn from "u'Ba'al ha'Shor Naki" is that if a Shor Tam (that has not yet gored three times) kills a man, the owner is not obligated to pay half the value of the dead man (instead of the full value that he would have to pay for the same damaged performed by a Shor Mu'ad [which already gored on three other occasions). The second thing is - that if the ox gores a pregnant woman, killing the unborn fetus, the owner is not obligated to pay the husband for the babies, as he would have had to do, had a person killed it.

(d) According to them, we will learn the prohibition of deriving benefit from the skin - from "*es* Besaro" 'es ha'Tafel li'Besaro' (what is secondary to the flesh).

(a) Those who learn Hana'as Oro from "u'Ba'al ha'Shor Naki" - learn nothing from "es Besaro" (because they do not Darshen the word "es").

(b) Rebbi Shimon ha'Amsuni (or Nechemyah ha'Amsuni) desisted from Darshening every "es" in the Torah - when he arrived at the Pasuk in Va'eschanan "es Hashem Elokecha Tiyra" (because he did not know whom to place on a par with Hashem, in this regard).

(c) When his Talmidim asked him what would happen to all the "esim" that he had Darshened until then - he replied that just as he would receive reward for what he had Darshened until then, so too, would he receive reward for withdrawing all the D'rashos that he had made until then.

(d) Rebbi Akiva Darshened from "*es* Hashem Elokecha Tiyra" - to include Talmidei-Chachamim, whom one must fear just as one fears Hashem.