Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) MAY AN AREL EAT MA'ASER?

(a) It did not teach, they (Terumah and Bikurim) apply in other years (the 3rd and 6th years of Shmitah), and have no redemption, which do not apply to Ma'aser.
(b) (Beraisa): If strands were left that invalidate the circumcision, he may not eat Terumah, Pesach, Kodshim or Ma'aser.

1. Suggestion #1: The Ma'aser referred to is Ma'aser (Sheni) of grain.
2. Rejection: No, it is Ma'aser of animals.
3. Question: But that is a case of Kodshim, which was already listed!
4. Counter-question: Pesach was also listed, even though it is a case of Kodshim!
5. Answer: It is necessary to teach both Pesach and Kodshim.

i. If it only taught Pesach - one would think, this is because the Torah explicitly forbade an Arel to at Pesach, but this does not apply to Kodshim.
ii. If it only taught Kodshim - one would think, this refers only to Pesach!

6. It is still difficult - having learned Kodshim, there is no need to teach Ma'aser of animals!
7. Suggestion #2: The Ma'aser referred to is Ma'aser Rishon, according to R. Meir, who says that only Levi'im may eat Ma'aser Rishon.

(c) (R. Chiya Bar Rav mi'Difti): An Arel is forbidden in 2 kinds of Ma'aser.

1. Suggestion: Ma'aser Sheni and Ma'aser of animals!
2. Rejection: No, Ma'aser Rishon (and Ma'aser of animals), according to R. Meir.

(d) (Beraisa): An Onen is forbidden to eat Ma'aser, and permitted to Terumah and the red heifer;

1. A Tevul Yom is forbidden to Terumah, and permitted to Ma'aser and the red heifer;
2. A Mechusar Kipurim (one who must bring a sacrifice to complete his purification) is forbidden to the red heifer, and permitted to Terumah and Ma'aser.

(e) Question: If an Arel is permitted to Ma'aser - let the Beraisa teach, an Arel is forbidden to Terumah, and permitted to the red heifer and Ma'aser!
(f) Answer: This Tana is R. Akiva, who considers an Arel as a Tamei person (and he is even forbidden to the red heifer).

1. (Beraisa - R. Akiva): "A man, a man" - to include an Arel.

(g) Question: Which Tana argues on R. Akiva?
(h) Answer: The Chachamim of R. Yosef ha'Bavli.

1. (Beraisa): If an Onen or Mechusar Kipurim burned the red heifer, it is valid; R. Yosef ha'Bavli says, if an Onen burned it, it is valid; if a Mechusar Kipurim burned it, it is invalid. (The 1st Tana argues on R. Akiva regarding Mechusar Kipurim, and may also argue regarding an Arel).

(i) (R. Yitzchak): We learn that an Arel is forbidden to Ma'aser from a Gezeirah Shaveh "From it, from it".

1. It says "from it" both by Pesach and Ma'aser. Just as an Arel is forbidden to Pesach, also to Ma'aser.

(a) Suggestion: The words must be free to learn the Gezeirah Shaveh - if not, we may ask, we should not learn from Pesach, since it has the stringencies of Pigul, Nosar, and (Kares for a person who eats it when he is) Tamei.
(b) Affirmation: Yes, the words are free.
(c) Question: How do we see that the words are free?
(d) Answer (Rava): It says "From it" 3 times by Pesach; 2 of these are extra. 1 of these 2 is used for the Gezeirah Shaveh.

1. According to the opinion that the Torah gives an Ase (to burn Nosar) after a Lav (not to leave it over) to teach that one is not lashed for this Lav - since the Torah wrote Nosar, it also wrote "From it".
2. According to the opinion that the Torah said to wait another morning before burning it, since the Torah wrote "until morning", it also wrote "from it".

(e) It says "From it" 3 times by Ma'aser; 2 of these are extra. 1 of these 2 teaches R. Avahu's law (73B), and 1 teaches Reish Lakish's law.

1. (Reish Lakish): "I did not give from it to a corpse" - but in a similar way, it may be used for a living person, namely anointing.

i. This teaches that one may anoint with Ma'aser Sheni which is Tamei.

2. Question (Mar Zutra): Perhaps the verse forbids buying a coffin or shrouds with Ma'aser Sheni!
3. Answer #1 (Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua): "From it" - from itself (not from its value).
4. Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): "I did not give" resembles "I did not eat"; just as the latter refers to the Ma'aser itself, also the former.

(f) The Gezeirah Shaveh is free from 1 side (what is written by Pesach).

1. This fits well according to the opinion that in such a case, we learn and do not challenge.
2. Question: According to the opinion that we learn and challenge, how can we answer (we can challenge as above, (j))?
3. Answer: R. Avahu's law is learned as Rav Nachman.

i. (Rav Nachman): "I have given you the guardings of my Terumah" - the verse speaks of 2 Terumos, Tahor and Tamei, and it says, "to you" - that you may cook with it as you burn it.

(a) (Mishnah): All Tamei people ...
(b) (R. Yochanan): "Any man from the seed of Aharon ..."

1. Terumah is what all seed of Aharon (i.e. also females) may eat.

(c) Question: Perhaps the verse refers to the chest and foreleg (given from sacrifices to Kohanim)!
(d) Answer: A Bas Kohen that returns to eat Terumah after being widowed or divorced from a Yisrael may not eat them.
(e) Objection: A Chalalah may not eat Terumah!
(f) Answer: A Chalalah is not considered the seed of Aharon.
(g) Question #1: How do we know that "Until he is Tahor" refers to nightfall - perhaps it means, when he brings his atonement sacrifice (then he may eat Terumah)!

1. Answer: This cannot be.
2. (Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): The verse speaks of a Zav that had 2 emissions and a leper that was closed off, just as a person Tamei from contact with a corpse, that does not need to bring a sacrifice.

(h) Question: But one that needs an atonement sacrifice, perhaps he is forbidden to Terumah until he brings it!
(i) Question #2: What is the source for this Mishnah?

1. (Mishnah): After immersing, he may eat Ma'aser; after dark, he may eat Terumah; when he brings his atonement sacrifice, he may eat Kodshim.

(j) Answer (Rava): There are 3 verses (which seem to contradict each other).

1. "He may only eat Kodshim after immersing" - implying, after immersing, he is pure!
2. "At nightfall, he will be Tahor, and may eat from Kodshim".
3. "The Kohen will atone for him, and he will be Tahor".

i. The resolution is - the 1st refers to Ma'aser, the 2nd to Terumah, the 3rd to Kodshim.

4. Question: Perhaps the 1st refers to Terumah, and the 2nd to Ma'aser.
5. Answer: Presumably, Terumah is more stringent, because:

i. A Tamei person who eats it is liable to death (at the hands of Heaven).
ii. A non-Kohen that mistakenly eats it must add a fifth when paying for what he ate.
iii. There is no redemption for it.
iv. It is forbidden to a non-Kohen.

6. Question: Rather, say that Ma'aser is more stringent, because:

i. It must be brought to Yerushalayim.
ii. It obligates a declaration.
iii. It is forbidden to an Onen.
iv. One may not burn it when it is Tamei, and one who eats Tamei Ma'aser is lashed.
v. It must be eradicated (in the 4th and 7th years of Shmitah).

7. Answer #1: Death is more stringent.
8. Answer #2 (Rava): Even without that consideration - the Torah says, "A soul (that will touch ... will immerse and be pure)".

i. Ma'aser applies to every soul (but Terumah, only to Kohanim).

9. Question: Perhaps this only applies to a Tamei person that is not Mechusar Kipurim - but a Mechusar Kipurim may not eat until he brings his sacrifice!
10. Answer (Abaye): 2 (seemingly contradictory) verses are written by a woman that gave birth. "Until the days of her purification are completed" - once the days are completed, she is Tehorah;

i. "The Kohen will atone for her, and she will be Tehorah".
ii. (Resolution): The 1st verse says when she can eat Terumah; the latter, when she may eat Kodshim.

11. Question: Perhaps we should say the other way!
12. Answer: Presumably, Kodshim is more stringent, because:

i. It can become Pigul;
ii. It becomes Nosar if not eaten in the allotted time.
iii. It is brought inside the Temple.
iv. One transgresses Me'ilah for improper benefit of Kodesh.
v. A Tamei person who eats it is liable to Kares,
vi. It is forbidden to an Onen.

13. Question: Rather, say that Terumah is more stringent, because:

i. A Tamei person who eats it is liable to death (at the hands of Heaven).
ii. A non-Kohen that mistakenly eats it must add a fifth when paying for what he ate.
iii. There is no redemption for it.
iv. It is forbidden to a non-Kohen.

14. Answer #1: There are more stringencies to Kodshim.
15. Answer #2 (Rava): Even without this, we cannot say that Mechusar Kipurim is permitted to Kodshim!

i. "The Kohen will atone for her, and she will be Tehorah" - implying that she is Teme'ah until then.
ii. "(Kodesh) meat that any Tamei person will touch may not be eaten" - Mechusar Kipurim can only be permitted Terumah.

16. Question (Rav Shisha Brei d'Rav Idi): You cannot say that this is talking about Terumah!

i. (Beraisa): "Yisrael" - one might think, Tumah of childbirth only applies to women born as Yisrael; "Woman" - this includes a convert or freed slave.
ii. A convert or freed slave cannot eat Terumah!

17. Counter-question (Rava): Can you really say the verse is not dealing with Terumah?