Previous daf

1)

(a) Rava asked what the Din will be (still n connection with the Ikar and the Tosefes) regarding Ma'aser. Whether, if one Ma'asered one's crops and then replanted them - one is obligated to Ma'aser what subsequently grows.

(b) Assuming that we go after the Tosefes (with regard to having to Ma'aser the Tosefes), he asked - whether one is perhaps obligated to Ma'aser the Ikar again too.

(c) When Abaye asked Rava why this should be any different than a regular case of wheat and barley, he was referring to - every case of replanted wheat and barley, which it was the accepted practice to Ma'aser.

(d) To which Rava replied that wheat and barley are different - because the seeds rot and die before they begin to grow again ('Zar'o Kalah'), and it is obvious that what subsequently grows is like new corn; whereas his She'eilah was confined to the species of seeds that do not rot before re-growing.

(a) We try to resolve the She'eilah from a statement by Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who ruled that a Litra of onions which were already Ma'asered and which one then planted - must be Ma'asered again when they grow larger (even the original onions which were already Ma'asered) ...

(b) ... and onions is a species which is 'Ein Zar'o Kalah'.

(c) The Tana found it necessary to insert the word 'Litra' to teach us - that the obligation to Ma'aser the entire onion applies even to where they know how much of the onion was Ma'asered already.

(d) We cannot then resolve Rava's She'eilah from there - because that is the way that one cultivates onions (by replanting them), whereas his She'eilah pertains to species that once grown, are normally eaten (and not re-planted).

(a) Taking Ma'aser from crops that grew in a plant pot that has no hole in it - is Chayav mi'de'Rabbanan. Note that in Rava's case (where the original crops were already Ma'asered), if one is Patur, one is Patur even mi'de'Rabbanan.

(b) When Rebbi Chanina bar Minyumi asked Abaye about Ma'asering from one plant pot without a hole on another plant pot without a hole, he retorted - that since both pots have no hole, both are only Chayav mi'de'Rabbanan, and there is no reason not to be able to take Ma'aser from one on to the other.

(a) So Abaye amends the She'eilah. The case, according to him, is - that of a plant pot without a hole in which crops grew to the stage of a third before it produced a hole after which they ripened.

(b) Bearing in mind that the Ikar is Patur and the Tosefes, Chayav, the She'eilah is - whether the owner is forbidden to Ma'aser from the Ikar (which is Patur) on to what grew afterwards (which is Chayav), because we do not go after the Ikar at all, and the Tosefes remains Chayav (min ha'Torah) whilst the Ikar is Patur (like the first side of Rava's second She'eilah), or whether we go after the Ikar le'Chumra (like the second side of the She'eilah) Rava said earlier [though this is unclear, because Rava was talking about Ma'asering the Ikar independently, not on the Tosefes]), and he may do so.

(c) Despite the fact that Rava already asked the basic She'eilah above, we find it necessary to repeat it - because whereas Rava was speaking about planting the crops a second time, we are now speaking about the crops continuing to grow after the initial planting. Perhaps even if in Rava's case, the Tosefes obligates the Ikar, in this case it won't.

(a) Rebbi Avahu asked about a case where, after performing Miru'ach, the owner replanted the stalks, and then, when they grew, he Ma'asered them whilst they were still Mechubar (attached). The Ma'aser might ...

1. ... be valid - because once they have passed the stage of Miru'ach, they adopt the status of Tevel, and are subject to Ma'aser (irrespective of whether are subsequently detached or attached)
2. ... not be valid - because since the owner subsequently planted them, they lost their status of Tevel.

(b) The Rabbanan objected to the She'eilah' on the basis of a 'Mishnah' - which states that there is no such thing as Terumah by Mechubar.

(c) Abaye refutes their objection by confining the 'Mishnah' to one specific area of Halachah, namely - that of the Chiyuv Miysah bi'Yedei Shamayim (for eating it be'Meizid), and paying an extra fifth (for eating it be'Shogeg).

(d) This ruling is understandable in a case where one cuts the corn and eats it, since then it is no longer Mechubar. Neither will the Chiyuv Miysah and Chomesh apply there where one bends down and eats the crops whilst they are still attached - due to the principle 'Batlah Da'ato Eitzel Kol Adam' (that is not the way people tend to eat, and it is therefore not considered Achilah).

(a) We query this from a note in Ilfa's notebook. The Neveilah of a Tahor bird has the unique distinction - in that it renders whoever eats it Tamei (as he swallows it, but not if he merely touches it).

(b) Ilfa wrote that if an egg of such a bird (that is still attached to the body) is still half inside the bird's stomach and half outside when it dies - then the inner half is Metamei the person who eats it, whereas the outer half is not.

(c) In spite of what we just said, the person who eats the part of the egg that is still inside the bird's stomach becomes Tamei, and we cannot apply the S'vara 'Batlah Da'ato Eitzel Kol Adam'- because it is only in the previous case, where the crops are Mechubar, that people do not tend to eat like that, but there where the article is Talush (detached), people will eat any old how.

(a) Rav Tivyomi bar Kisna Amar Shmuel ruled that if someone plants Kil'ayim in a plant pot without a hole - it is Asur.

(b) Abaye raised a slight objection to this, based on the Mishnah in Terumah, which rules - that if one takes Terumah from a plant pot without a hole on to one with a hole - the Terumah is valid, though one is obligated to take Terumah again (from the pot with the hole).

(c) This proves - that what grows in pot without a hole is Chayav Ma'asros (mi'de'Rabbanan [in which case Shmuel is not teaching us anything]).

(d) Shmuel's Chidush must therefore be - that whoever eats the Kil'ayim is Chayav Makas Mardus (mi'de'Rabbanan).

(a) Our Mishnah lists five types of grain that are Chayav Chalah - wheat, barley, rye, oats and spelt.

(b) The Tana rules that ...

1. ... any two or more of them - will combine to make up the Shi'ur Chalah (though this will be qualified in the Sugya).
2. ... the Din Chadash before the Omer (see Tosfos-Yom-Tov Chalah 1:1) - applies to them (exclusively).

(c) The Tana adds - that one is forbidden to cut them before Pesach.

(d) And that the Omer permits them - provided they have taken root before the Omer is brought.

9)

(a) The Beraisa describes spelt (Kusmin) as belonging to the family of wheat and oats (Shiboles-Shu'al) and rye (Shifon) - as belonging to the barley family.

(b) The ramifications of these rulings are - that Kusmin can only combine with Chitin, and Se'orin, Shifon and Shiboles-Shu'al with each other.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Lo Sochal Alav Chametz ... Shiv'as Yamim Tochal Alav Matzos Lechem Oni" - that only those types of grain that can become Chametz are eligible as Matzah.

(b) And Resh Lakish subsequently learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "*Lechem* Oni" "Ve'hayah be'Ochlechem *mi'Lechem* ha'Aretz" (in Yehoshua) - that this ruling extends to Chadash, too.

(c) These Pesukim preclude - rice and millet (Orez ve'Dochen) from the Din of Chametz, Matzah and Chadash because although they do smell, they do not begin to foment, they never reach the stage of Chametz.

(a) The Beraisa rules that fresh produce, flour and dough (of the five species) - combine to make up the Shi'ur.

(b) Rav Kahana learns this with regard to Chadash; Rav Yosef, with regard to Chametz. Fresh wheat will become subject to Chametz - from the moment that one adds water.

(c) Rav Papa learns it with regard to Ma'aser Sheini - regarding eating it outside the walls of Yerushalayim (for which one receives Malkos).

(a) Finally, Rava learns it with regard to Tum'as Ochlin - which comes to teach us that just as dough is edible as it is, so too, must the grains and the flour be edible just as they are (without the husks [of the grains] and the bran [of the flour]).

(b) We support this with a Beraisa - which restricts Rava's statement to barley shells (but not to those of wheat, which will combine even if they are still in their shells, because the shell of wheat is thin and soft, and therefore edible.

(c) When the Tana says 'Se'orah she'Einah Kelufah, Einah Mitztarefes', he means - that as long as the barley shell has not been removed, even the kernel inside it will not combine with other food, since the shell interrupts between them.

(a) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns from the Pasuk "al Kol Zera Zeru'a Asher Yizare'a" - that even wheat, barley and lentils in their shells (just as one plants them) will combine with other foods to make up the Shi'ur.

(b) We reconcile what we just learned about barley with Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael - by establishing the former to where crops have already gone dry, and the latter, to when they are still fresh ...

(c) ... because as long as they are still fresh, the shells remain attached to the grains, and serve as a protection (whereas once they become dry, they soon fall off, thereby losing the title of 'Shomer').

(d) The problem with ascribing this Halachah to the fact that the peel of wet barley is soft and is therefore considered a food in its own right is - that in that case, how will we establish the principle that a Shomer has the same Din as the fruit.

(a) Earlier we cited Resh Lakish, who learned from "Lechem" "Lechem" that the five kinds of grain are included in the Isur of Chadash. Rebbi Yochanan learns via the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Reishis Ketzirchem el ha'Kohen" from "*Reishis* Arisoseichem" (in connection with Chalah) - that they are included in the Isur of cutting the corn before the Omer, too.

(b) Rebbi Yossi bar Zavda interprets our Mishnah, which forbids eating Chadash before the Omer, as 'before the cutting of the Omer'. According to Rebbi Yonah, it means - 'before the bringing of the Omer.

(c) The problem our Mishnah creates for Rebbi Yossi bar Zavda is that instead of 'Asurin be'Chadash Lifnei ha'Omer, Ve'liktzor Lifnei Pesach', the Tana ought to have said - Asurin be'Chadash Ve'liktzor Lifnei ha'Omer' (since one is not permitted to cut the Omer on Yom-Tov).

(d) There is no problem with Rebbi Yonah - according to whom Chadash is Asur until they bring the Omer, and cutting it, until Pesach (which in fact, means the night of Motza'ei Yom-Tov, when they cut the Omer, two independent rulings).

(a) To reconcile the text that reads 'Le'arvinhu ve'Lisninhu Asurin be'Chadash Ve'liktzor Lifnei ha'Pesach' (implying that it becomes permitted to eat Chadash on Motza'ei Yom-Tov Rishon of Pesach), with the fact that on no account, can Chadash be permitted before the following sunrise, we will have to allow for the fact the Beis-Din sometimes delayed cutting the Omer until close to dawn-break, and that factually, the cutting and the Heter to eat Chadash both took place only in the morning.

(b) The serious problem with this text (which is actually based on the text in our Mishnah) is - that 'ad ha'Pesach' with reference to eating Chadash), implies that one may eat it on the first day of Pesach, even before the Omer has been cut, which is of course, inconceivable.

(c) We therefore conclude that as far as Chadash is concerned, Rebbi Yossi bar Zavda agrees with Rebbi Yonah that it is Asur until the bringing of the Omer. Their Machlokes, in fact, pertains to the Seifa of the Mishnah 'Im Hishrishu Kodem la'Omer ha'Omer Matiran' ...

(d) ... Rebbi Yossi bar Zavda interprets this as 'Kodem Ketziras ha'Omer'; Rebbi Yonah as Kodem Hava'as ha'Omer'.