Previous daf

1)

(a) The Korban Todah, which our Mishnah now discusses, comprised five Sa'in Yerushalmiyos - or six Midbariyos ...

(b) ... which in turn, is equal to two Eifah (three Sa'ah Midbariyos = one Eifah).

(c) The twenty Isaron were divided equally between the Matzah and the Chametz - ten Isaron for the Matzah loaves, and ten for the Chametz.

(d) There were three kinds of Matzah loaves and one of Chametz (each kind comprised ten loaves).

(a) Each Chametz Chalah comprised - one Isaron.

(b) The three kinds of Matzah loaves consisted of - baked Chalos, wafer (Matzos) and loaves made of flour and boiling water.

(c) Three and a third Esronim was allocated for each kind of Matzah loaves.

(d) And there were - three Matzah loaves per Isaron.

(a) Given that there are six Kabin in a Sa'ah, the Todah comprised - thirty Kabin Midbariyos?

(b) Seeing as fifteen Kabin were then allocated for both the Matzah and the Chametz loaves, each kind of Chametz loaf consisted of five Yerushalmi Kabin ...

(c) ... three Chalos per Kav.

(a) Given that a 'Bas' is three Sa'ah, Rav Chisda learns from the Pasuk in Yechezkel "ha'Eifah ve'ha'Bas Tochen Echad Yih'yeh" - that an Eifah comprises three Sa'ah, too.

(b) We suggest that we know how much a 'Bas' is from the Pasuk there "Laseis Ma'aser Chomer ha'Bas" (from the Navi's equation of a Bas to a Chomer). We object to that from the Pasuk there "va'Asiris ha'Chomer ha'Eifah" - on the grounds that if we knew how much a Chomer was, then why do we not learn the measurement of an Eifah directly from *this* Pasuk? The fact that we don't, is proof that we do not know how much a Chomer is, in which case, how can we determine what a Bas is from the Pasuk equating it with a Chomer?

(c) We ultimately learn how much a Chomer is from another Pasuk there, which equates a Chomer to a Kur - which we know to be thirty Sa'ah.

(d) This proves - that a Chomer is thirty Sa'ah. Consequently, the Pasuk "Laseis Ma'aser ha'Chomer ha'Bas teaches us that a Bas is three Sa'ah, and the Pasuk "ha'Eifah ve'ha'Bas Tochen Echad, that an Eifah too, is three Sa'ah.

(a) When Shmuel says 'Ein Mosifin ...

1. ... al ha'Midos Yoser mi'Sh'tus', he means - that if Beis-Din decide to increase the measures of the town, they may only do so by up to one sixth (a measure that held for example, five egg-volumes, will now hold six).
2. ... al ha'Matbe'a Yoser mi'Sh'tus', he means that the same rule applies to coins (in other words, they inflated the value of the coins).

(b) The third Chidush Shmuel adds to this list is - that a store-keeper may earn up to one sixth more than he paid the wholesaler for the wine or fruit, but no more than that.

(c) Chazal's reason for this Takanah cannot be for fear that ...

1. ... merchants who bring their wares to sell will raise their prices accordingly, creating the likelihood that they will raise them too high - because then they should have forbidden an increass of even a sixth.
2. ... the seller, not knowing of the increase in Midos, will supply the purchaser using the same measure (which now holds more than sixth more than it did before, causing Bitul Mekach (the entire sale to be negated) - because if so, the prohibition should extend even to less than a sixth ...

(d) ... since Rava said 'Kol Davar she'be'Midah, ve'she'be'Mishkal ve'she'be'Minyan Afilu Pachos mi'Chedei Ona'ah Chozer' (anything which is measured, weighed or counted is subject to Bitul Mekach, even if the loss entails less than a sixth).

(a) So we suggest that perhaps, the object of the Takanah is to prevent the middle man ( who buys from Reuven to sell to Shimon, and who expects to make a sixth profit) from making a loss on his sale. This means - that by allowing him to gain a sixth, increasing the measures by a sixth (but not more) at least ensures that he will not lose anything (even if he doesn't gain either). But more than that will cause him a loss.

(b) We refute this explanation too however, on the basis of the principle 'Zavan ve'Zavin Tagra Ikri', meaning - that if the middle man will buy and sell at the same price (without making any profit) he is not a merchant! Consequently, the Chachamim should have been even more stringent regarding this Takanah, to enable the seller at least a small margin of profit, and not just not to lose.

(c) For this to have been the reason, Shmuel ought to have said - 'Ein Mosifin al ha'Midos Sh'tus, Ki-im *Pachos mi'Sh'tus*'.

(a) Rav Chisda concludes that Shmuel based his ruling on a Pasuk in Yechezkel. When the Navi writes "ve'ha'Shekel Esrim Geirah, Esrim Shekalim, Chamishah ve'Esrim Shekalim, Asarah va'Chamishah Shekel, ha'Manah", he is coming to teach us - that a Manah comprises sixty Shekalim.

(b) He breaks up the Shekalim in this way - because in some places, it seems, a Manah comprised just twenty Shekalim, in others, twenty-five, and in others again, fifteen.

(c) "Shekel" in this context refers to - a Sela (two Shekalim [because a Shekel of Kodesh is double, and two Shekalim comprise a Sela]).

(a) According to Yechezkel - two hundred and forty Dinrim comprise sixty Shekalim.

(b) One would normally expect to find - a hundred Dinrim in a Manah.

(c) Yechezkel refers to two hundred and forty - because to begin with, a Manah of Kodesh (just like a Shekel of Kodesh) is double that of a Manah of Chulin.

(d) Besides the Chidush of 'Mosifin al ha'Midos, ve'Ein Mosofon Yoser mi'Sh'tus' (which are not considered two, because the latter statement is not contained in the Pasuk, and is the Chachamim's own decision), we can also learn from Yechezkel - that the sixth under discussion is a sixth of the total (which we would otherwise refer to as a fifth).

(e) And we prove this - from the Reisha of our Mishnah 'ha'Todah Haysah Ba'ah Chamesh Yerushalmiyos she'Hein Sheish Midbariyos' (which in fact, is a fifth more, and not a sixth).

9)

(a) Our Mishnah discusses the distribution of the loaves of the Korban Todah. The Kohen received - one out of ten of each of the four kinds of loaves, as 'Terumah'.

(b) The Tana learn from the Pasuk in Tzav "Vehikriv Mimenu ...

1. ... "Echad" - that he had to receive a whole loaf and not a piece, or pieces.
2. ... "mi'Kol Korban" - that all the loaves had to be together, when the Terumah was taken.

(c) The rest of the loaves - are eaten by the owner.

(d) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Ve'hikriv Mimenu" - that the Kohen had to receive one of each of the four kinds (and not two from one and none from the other).

(a) The Tana learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Terumah" (in Tzav) Terumah" - that, like Terumas Ma'aser, the owner has to give the Kohen one tenth of the loaves (as we explained).

(b) The Tana suggests that we learn the Din of the Todah from ...

1. ... Terumas Ma'aser rather than from Bikurim (where the Torah also writes "Terumah") - because, like Terumas Ma'aser, it is final (unlike Bikurim, which is followed by other Terumos).
2. ... Bikurim rather than from Terumas Ma'aser - because, like Bikurim (which must be eaten in Yerushalayim), it can only be eaten in a holy place (unlike Terumas Ma'aser, which can be eaten anywhere in Eretz Yisrael).

(c) He ultimately learns from "*Mimenu Terumah* la'Hashem" - that we learn the Din by the Lachmei Todah from that of Terumas Ma'aser (where the Torah also writes "Mimenu Terumah") and not from that of Bikurim (where the word Terumah does not appear).

(d) The Tana learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Lechem" "Lechem" (in connection with the Sh'tei ha'Lechem) - that each loaf of the Lachmei Todah, like those of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, must comprise one Isaron.

(a) We suggest that perhaps we ought to learn this 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from the Lechem ha'Panim - in which case, each loaf would comprise *two* Esronim.

(b) The Lachmei Todah are compatible with the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and not with the Lechem ha'Panim - in that they both come as Chametz, together with a Korban Beheimah.

(c) We counter this by comparing the Lachmei Todah to the Lechem ha'Panim in two ways. Besides the fact that (unlike the Sh'tei ha'Lechem) they may both be brought from the produce of Chutz la'Aretz, they also differ from the Sh'tei ha'Lechem - inasmuch as they may be brought from the old crops.

(a) We finally learn from the word "Tavi'u (in the Pasuk "mi'Moshvoseichem Tavi'u Lechem Tenufah Shetayim" [written in connection with the Sh'tei ha'Lechem]), which is otherwise superfluous - that each Chalah of the Lachmei Todah must comprise one Isaron (just like the Sh'tei otherwise superfluous - that each of the Chametz loaves of the Todah, like the Sh'tei ha'Lechem (which also consist of Chametz) should comprise an Isaron.

(b) And we learn from "So'les *Tih'yenah*" - that the Chametz of the Lachmei Todah, unlike the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, do not comprise only two Esronim.

(c) Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi explains - that the Tana learns this from the extra 'Yud' in "Tih'yenah" (which contains an extra 'Yud'), implying 'ten' Esronim.

(a) The Tana learns from the Pasuk (written in connection with the Matzah loaves of the Todah) "al Chalos Lechem Chametz" - that the Matzos must comprise the same volume of flour (ten Esronim) as the Chametz.

(b) The Tana interpreted "Mimenu" ("Ve'hikriv Mimenu") to mean 'joined' (that all the loaves must be together when the Terumah is separated. By the same token, Rav Chisda Amar Avimi explains the Pasuk (in connection with the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur) "ve'es Kol Chelbo Yarim Mimenu" - to mean that the animal may not be cut into pieces before the Cheilev has been removed.

(c) He also learned the Din of one tenth regarding Terumah (from the loaves of the Todah) from Terumas Ma'aser. We ask why he does not learn it from ...

1. ...Terumas Midyan - which would entail giving the Kohen one fiftieth.
2. ... Terumas Chalah - which would entail giving him one forty-eighth.

(d) We answer that ...

1. ... Terumas Midyan is different - inasmuch as it only happened once, whereas the Lachmei Todah and Terumas Ma'aser are ongoing Mitzvos.
2. ... Terumas Chalah is different in that - the word "Mimenu" does not occur in connection with it (as it does by the other two), as Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael explains.

(a) Rava asks whether a Zar is Chayav Miysah ve'Chomesh for eating the Lachmei Todah - Miysah for eating it be'Meizid, and an extra fifth (added to the principle) for doing so be'Shogeg.

(b) The She'eilah is based on the fact that we learn the Isur from Terumas Ma'aser (by which this dual punishment is written).

(c) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with someone who eats Terumah) ...

1. ... "u'Meisu *Bo* Ki Yechaleluhu" - that the death penalty applies only to what *we* call Terumah (i.e. Terumah Gedolah and Terumas Ma'aser), but not to anything else.
2. ... "Ve'ysasaf *Chamishiso* Alav - that the same is true of the extra fifth.

(d) The Tana learned the ten Esronos (ha'Eifah) by the Chametz loaves of the Todah from the extra 'Yud' in "Tih'yenah" (by the Sh'tei ha'Lechem 'Im Eino Inyan' [see Rabeinu Gershom]). According to Rava, we know that this refers to tenths of an Eifah, and not ten half Kabin (for example) - because (based on the principle 'Davar ha'Lameid me'Inyano') we will learn from "Sh'nei Esronim" mentioned in the same Parshah (which specifically refers to tenths of an Eifah).

(a) And the Beraisa also learned that the Matzah Chalos too, require one Isaron of oil from "al Chalos Lechem Chametz". The problem with this Limud is - that it appears to clash with the principle 'Davar ha'Lameid be'Hekesh, Ein Chozer u'Melameid be'Hekesh'.

(b) We answer that this is a case of 'Heimenu ve'Davar Acher' - in which case it is not considered 'Chozer u'Melameid be'Hekesh' (as we shall now see).

(c) 'Heimenu ve'Davar Acher' might mean that the Hekesh of Matzah to Chametz (ten Esronim) is not the same as that of Chametz to the Sh'tei ha'Lechem (each loaf one Isaron). It might also mean - that since the Lameid and the Melamed are the Lachmei Todah, they are both part of one Hekesh (and not two).

(d) According to those who hold that it is nevertheless a Hekesh, we answer 'Tavi'u Ribuya Hi', by which we mean - that the word "Tavi'u" which is superfluous as far as the Sh'tei ha'Lechem is concerned (as we learned earlier), in which case the first Limud of Chametz is not a Hekesh, but as if it is was written there specifically.