Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) HOW WE MAKE AN "IR HA'NIDACHAS"

(a) Question: If the city was enticed by itself (people decided on their own to serve idolatry), what is the law?

1. "Va'Yadichu" - not that it was enticed by itself;
2. Or, even if it was enticed by itself?

(b) Answer (Mishnah): If the enticers were women or children (it is not an Ir ha'Nidachas).

1. (They are not influential enticers), this is like being enticed by itself, and it does not become an Ir ha'Nidachas!

(c) Rejection: No, being drawn after women or children is not the same as being drawn after themselves.
(d) (Mishnah): Only if the majority of the city was enticed.
(e) Question: How do we determine whether or not the majority was enticed?
(f) Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah): We judge people, those found guilty are jailed; if the majority are convicted, the city is an Ir ha'Nidachas.
(g) Rejection (Ula): We do not delay execution!
(h) Answer #2 (Ula (and R. Yochanan)): Rather, we judge people, those found guilty are stoned; if the majority are convicted, the city is an Ir ha'Nidachas (and anyone found guilty from now on is beheaded).
(i) Answer #3 (Reish Lakish): We make many Batei Din, in order that we can judge all of them in one day (and give the proper Misah without delay).
(j) Question (against Reish Lakish): But Rav Chama bar Yosi taught, "V'Hotzeisa Es ha'Ish...(El *Sh'arecha*)" - you judge individuals at the local Beis Din, but (most of) a city is only judged by the Great Sanhedrin!
(k) Correction: Rather, we make many Batei Din, in order to see how many transgressed; if we see that the majority sinned, the Great Sanhedrin will give the final verdict.

(a) (Mishnah): "Hake Sakeh Es Yoshvei ha'Ir"...
(a) (Beraisa): If a caravan of donkey-drivers or camel-drivers stopped in a city that became an Ir ha'Nidachas (and were enticed with it):

1. If they were in the city for 30 days, they are killed by the sword and their property is destroyed (like residents of the city);
2. If they were there less than 30 days, they are stoned, their heirs inherit their money (like individuals who served idolatry).

(b) Contradiction (Mishnah): Someone who has lived in the city 12 months is considered a resident.
(c) Answer (Rava): One is not considered to be (a person) of the city until 12 months;

1. (Regarding Ir ha'Nidachas, it says "Yoshvei (those that stay in) ha'Ir") - after 30 days, one is considered to be staying there.
2. (Beraisa): If one vows not to benefit from people of a city, this applies to people that have lived there for 12 months;

i. If he vows from Yoshvei ha'Ir, this applies to people that have lived there for 30 days.

(a) (Mishnah): "Ha'Charem Osah..."
(b) (Beraisa): "Ha'Charem Osah" - this excludes property outside the city that belongs to Tzadikim of the city;

1. "V'Es Kol Asher Bah" - this includes Tzadikim's property inside the city.
2. "Shelalah (its spoils)" - not what pertains to Shamayim;
3. "V'Es Kol Shelalah" - this includes property outside the city that belongs to Resha'im of the city.

(c) R. Shimon: The Torah says that Tzadikim's property inside the city is destroyed because it led them to live there.
(d) (Beraisa): "V'Es Kol Shelalah" - this includes Resha'im's property outside the city.
(e) (Rav Chisda): This is only if it is Nikbatzim b'Sochah (it was once in the city, and can be brought to the city within one day).
(f) (Rav Chisda): Deposits of people of an Ir ha'Nidachas are permitted.
(g) Question: What is the case?

1. Suggestion: Property of people of another city was deposited in the Ir ha'Nidachas.
2. Rejection: Obviously, we do not destroy it, it is not Shelalah!

(h) Answer #1: Property of Resha'im of the Ir ha'Nidachas was deposited in another city.
(i) Rejection: If it is Nikbatzim b'Sochah, it is forbidden; if it is not Nikbatzim b'Sochah, Rav Chisda already taught this!
(j) Answer #2: Really, property of people of another city was deposited (with Resha'im) in the Ir ha'Nidachas; the case is, the Shomrim accepted Acharayos;

1. One might have thought, since they accepted Acharayos, it is considered like their property - Rav Chisda teaches, this is not so.

(k) (Rav Chisda): If half an animal belongs to an Ir ha'Nidachas and half to another city, it is forbidden;

1. If half a dough belongs to an Ir ha'Nidachas and half to another city, it is permitted.

(l) Question: What is the reason?
(m) Answer: We do not consider an animal to be divided among the partners (rather, each owns half the entire animal), but we consider a dough to be divided, as if each partner owns (by himself) half the dough.
(n) Question (Rav Chisda): If an animal of an Ir ha'Nidachas was slaughtered, is this considered slaughter to inhibit Tum'as Neveilah?

1. "L'Fi Charev" - there is no distinction how it was killed, it is like an animal killed without slaughter (a Neveilah);
2. Or, the verse does not discuss if it was slaughtered, but if it was slaughtered, it is not Neveilah.

(o) This question is not resolved.

(a) Question (Rav Yosef): What is the law of hair of a Tzadekes of the city?
(b) Objection: (Rava): You only ask about a Tzadekes, implying that hair of a Resha'ah must surely be destroyed;

1. "Tikbotz...v'Sarafta" - we only burn things that are ready to be gathered and burned, not hair (or anything else) that must first be detached!

(c) (Rava): Rather, Rav Yosef asks about a wig of a Tzadekes of the city.
(d) Version #1 - Rashi - Question: What is the case?

1. If it attached to her, it is like herself (even the clothing she is wearing is spared)!

(e) Answer: The case is, it is hanging on a peg;

1. Since she is not wearing it, it is like Tzadikim's property inside the city, it is destroyed;
2. Or, since she regularly puts it on, it is like clothing she is wearing, it is spared.

(f) Version #2 - Ramah - Question: What is the case?

1. If it is attached to her (e.g. through wax), it is like herself!

(g) Answer: The case is, it is hanging on a peg in back of her ear;

1. Is it destroyed with property of Tzadikim in the city?
2. Or, since she is wearing it, is it like the clothing she wears, which is spared? (End of Version #2)

(h) This question is not resolved.
(i) (Mishnah): "V'Es Kol Shelalah Tikbotz El Toch Rechovah..."
(j) (Beraisa - R. Yishmael): If it does not have a square, it cannot become an Ir ha'Nidachas;
(k) R. Akiva says, if it does not have one, we build one.
(l) Question: What do they argue about?
(m) Answer: R. Yishmael holds that "Rechov*ah*" (*its* square) connotes that it was already there;

1. R. Akiva holds that if it now has one, it is also called Rechovah.

5) KODSHIM IN AN "IR HA'NIDACHAS"

(a) (Mishnah): Hekdesh is redeemed...
(b) (Beraisa): Kodshei Mizbe'ach are left to die, Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are redeemed, Terumah is left to rot, Ma'aser Sheni and Kisvei ha'Kodesh are buried;
(c) R. Shimon says, "Behemtah (*its* animals)" - not Bechor (a firstborn) or Ma'aser Behemah, which are Kodesh;

1. "Shelalah" - not money of Hekdesh or Ma'aser Sheni.

(d) Question: Why does the first Tana say that Kodshei Mizbe'ach are left to die - we should graze them until they become blemished, redeem them, and use the money to bring another!
(e) Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): "Zevach Resha'im To'evah" (we do not want to bring a Korban from Resha'im).
(f) Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): The Mishnah discusses Kodshim with Acharayos (i.e. if the Korban becomes lost or blemished, the owner must bring another); the Tana is R. Shimon, who says that these are considered the property of the owner (therefore, it must be destroyed - we do not flagrantly kill them, for this would not be Kavod Shamayim).
(g) Objection: R. Shimon argues, the first Tana cannot be R. Shimon!
(h) Answer #3: The Mishnah discusses Kodshim Kalim; the Tana is R. Yosi ha'Galili, who says that these are considered the property of the owner.
(i) Inference: Kodshei Kodoshim are not the property of the owner, we would redeem them.
(j) Question: Why does the Tana say that Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are redeemed - it would be better to distinguish between Kodshim Kalim and Kodshei Kodoshim, and teach that Kodshei Kodoshim are redeemed!
(k) Answer: The Tana teaches that Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are redeemed, for this is always true;

1. Not all Kodshei Kodoshim are redeemed - a Chatas (whose owner died, as will be the case) is left to die.

(l) R. Yochanan did not answer like Reish Lakish, he learns from "Zevach Resha'im To'evah".
(m) Question: Why didn't Reish Lakish answer like R. Yochanan?
(n) Answer: He holds that "Zevach Resha'im To'evah" only applies to the very Korban of the Rasha;

1. Here, if we sell the Rasha's Korban and buy another, "Zevach Resha'im To'evah" does not apply.

(o) (Beraisa - R. Shimon): "Behemtah" - not Bechor and Ma'aser.
(p) Question: What is the case?

1. If they are Tamim (unblemished), these are spoils of Shamayim!
2. If they are blemished, they are spoils of the city!

(q) Answer (Ravina): Really, they are blemished, but they are not considered spoils of the city because they are not like (Chulin) animals of the owner - even blemished firstborn and Ma'aser retain laws of Kedushah (e.g. one may not benefit from the milk or shearings or work with them).
(r) Ravina argues with Shmuel.

1. (Shmuel): Everything is offered, everything is redeemed.
2. Question: What does this mean?
3. Answer: Any Korban that is offered when it is Tam and redeemed if it is blemished (i.e. all Korbanos except for Bechor and Ma'aser), Shelalah excludes it (that it need not be destroyed);

i. Any Korban that is offered when it is Tam and is not redeemed if it is blemished, i.e. Bechor and Ma'aser, Behemtah excludes it.

(a) (Beraisa): Terumah is left to rot.
(b) (Rav Chisda): This only applies to Terumah by a Yisrael - but Terumah given to a Kohen is his money, it is burned.
(c) Objection (Rav Yosef - Mishnah): Ma'aser Sheni and Kisvei ha'Kodesh are buried.

1. Ma'aser Sheni belongs to its owner just as Terumah belongs to a Kohen, and it must be buried!

(d) Correction - (Rav Chisda): The Beraisa (which says that Terumah is left to rot) discusses Terumah by a Kohen - but Terumah by a Yisrael is given to a Kohen in another city.
(e) (Mishnah - R. Meir): A dough of Ma'aser Sheni is exempt from Chalah;
(f) Chachamim say, Chalah must be taken.
(g) (Rav Chisda): They argue about Ma'aser Sheni in Yerushalayim - R. Meir says, it is Mamon Gavoha (i.e. like Hekdesh), Chachamim say it is like Chulin;

1. All agree that outside Yerushalayim, it is exempt (since it is forbidden there until it is redeemed, it is Mamon Gavoha; alternatively, since it was forbidden like Mamon Gavoha at the time of kneading, it is always exempt, even after it is redeemed.

(h) Objection (Rav Yosef - Mishnah): Ma'aser Sheni and Kisvei ha'Kodesh (of an Ir ha'Nidachas) are buried.

1. Question: What is the case?
2. Answer #1: The city is Yerushalayim.
3. Rejection (Beraisa): Ten things are special about Yerushalayim:

i. ...It cannot be condemned to be an Ir ha'Nidachas.

4. Answer #2: A different city became an Ir ha'Nidachas, one of the residents had brought Ma'aser Sheni to Yerushalayim.
5. Rejection: If so, once it entered the walls of Yerushalayim, it is Niklat (absorbed, and forbidden to take out);

i. Since it is not Nikbatzim b'Sochah; it need not be destroyed, it should be permitted!

6. Answer #3: It was in another city, it never entered Yerushalayim (and it must be buried - we do not consider it Mamon Gavoha)!

(i) Answer #1 (and Answer #4 to Question (1)): No, the case is, a different city became an Ir ha'Nidachas, a resident had brought Ma'aser Sheni to Yerushalayim, it became Tamei (therefore, it may be taken out of Yerushalayim, it is Nikbatzim b'Soch the Ir ha'Nidachas).
(j) Objection: If so, we should redeem the Ma'aser Sheni!

1. (R. Elazar): Tamei Ma'aser Sheni can be redeemed even in Yerushalayim (since it cannot be eaten)- "Ki Lo Suchal Se'eiso";
2. "Se'eiso" is a language of eating - "va'Yisa Masa'os".
3. Suggestion: The Ma'aser was bought with Ma'aser money.
4. Rejection: Even so, he can redeem it!

i. (Mishnah): If produce was bought with money of Ma'aser Sheni and it became Tamei, it can be redeemed.

5. Suggestion: The Beraisa is R. Yehudah, who says that it must be buried.
6. Rejection: If so, even if it did not belong to someone of an Ir ha'Nidachas, we would have to burn it!

(k) Answer #2 (and defense of Answer #2 to Question (h:1)): Really, a different city became an Ir ha'Nidachas, a resident had brought Ma'aser Sheni to Yerushalayim, it is Tahor;

1. The case is, the walls of Yerushalayim fell (so it can no longer be eaten).
2. (Rava): Mid'Oraisa, Ma'aser can only be eaten within the walls; mid'Rabanan, once Ma'aser enters the walls, it cannot be redeemed;

i. Chachamim only decreed when there are walls (and it can be eaten) - if the walls fell, it may be redeemed.