Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) ONE WHO CEASES TO LEARN

(a) (Rav Yehudah): Anyone who ceases to learn Torah is consumed by fire - "Veha'Esh Tochelem".
(b) (Rav Dimi): Anyone who separates himself from learning Torah falls to Gehinom - "To'eh mi'Derech Haskel Bi'Khal Refa'im Yanu'ach";

1. 'Refa'im' refers to Gehinom - "Refa'im Sham b'Imkei She'ol".

(a) (Mishnah): If one sells a wasteheap, the manure is included...
(b) (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If something is fit for (can be offered on) the Altar but not for Bedek ha'Bayis, or is only fit for Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis, or is not fit for either, Me'ilah applies to it and its contents;

1. If one was Makdish a pit full of water, a wasteheap full of manure, a dovecote full of doves, a field full of grass, or a tree laden with fruit, Me'ilah applies to it and its contents;
2. But if he was Makdish an empty pit (or wasteheap...) and it became full of water (or manure...), Me'ilah applies to it, not to what came later.
3. R. Yosi says, if one was Makdish a field or a tree, Me'ilah applies to it and what grows, for what grows is Hekdesh.

(c) (Beraisa - Rebbi): I agree with R. Yehudah regarding a pit and dovecote, and with R. Yosi regarding a field and tree.
(d) Question: What does this mean?!

1. We understand that he agrees with R. Yehudah regarding a pit and dovecote, implying that they argue regarding a field and tree (and there he holds like R. Yosi);
2. But saying 'I agree with R. Yosi regarding a field and tree' implies that they argue regarding a pit and dovecote - R. Yosi did not argue about these!
3. Suggestion: Perhaps R. Yosi addresses R. Yehudah according to R. Yehudah's reasoning ('I argue in all cases; I understand why you (R. Yehudah) argue about a pit and dovecote, but you should admit regarding a field or tree, for what grows is Hekdesh'!).
4. Rejection (Beraisa - R. Yosi): I disagree with R. Yehudah regarding a field and tree, for what grows is Hekdesh.

i. Inference: He agrees regarding a pit and dovecote!

(e) Answer: Rebbi means, R. Yosi agrees with R. Yehudah regarding a pit and dovecote, R. Yosi only argues regarding a field and tree.
(f) (Beraisa): If one was Makdish them when they are empty and then they became full, Me'ilah applies to it, not to what came later;
(g) R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon says, Me'ilah applies also to what came later.
(h) (Rabah): They argue about a field and tree: the first Tana holds like R. Yehudah, R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon holds like R. Yosi;

1. All agree regarding a pit and dovecote (that Me'ilah applies to the contents).

(i) Question (Abaye - Beraisa): If one was Makdish them when they are full, Me'ilah applies to them and their contents;
(j) R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon switches (what he said when one was Makdish them empty, here he says that Me'ilah does not apply to the contents).

1. If R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon argued about a field and tree, why does he switch his opinion?

(k) Retraction (Rabah): They argue about a pit and dovecote;

1. All agree regarding a field and tree that Me'ilah applies to them and their contents.

(l) Question: Regarding a pit and dovecote, about what do they argue, when they are initially empty and when they are initially full?
(m) Answer - part 1: When they are initially empty, they argue as R. Meir and Chachamim argue.

1. The first Tana holds like Chachamim, that a person cannot transfer ownership of (or Makdish) something that is not yet in the world;
2. R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon holds like R. Meir, a person can transfer ownership of something that is not yet in the world.
3. Question: R. Meir only said that regarding fruits of a date tree, for they normally grow - but an empty pit or dovecote will not fill itself!
4. Answer (Rava): The case is, the pit is at the bottom of an incline (water normally flows into it), the dovecote is near a thriving dovecote (offspring from the full dovecote will presumably inhabit the empty one).

(n) Question - part 2: When they are initially full, about what do they argue?
(o) Answer (Rava): If he said 'The pit (or dovecote) is Hekdesh' without specifying;

1. R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon holds like his father: we learn the law of Hekdesh from the law of commoners;

i. A seller could say, I only sold the pit, not the water; likewise, the pit becomes Hekdesh, not the water.

2. (The first Tana does not learn the law of Hekdesh from the law of commoners - Maharshal deletes this from the text.)

(p) Question: Is it really true that a seller could say, I only sold the pit?

1. (Mishnah): If one sells a pit, the water is included.

(q) Answer (Rava): That Mishnah is the opinion of one Tana, Chachamim argue.

1. (Beraisa): If one sells a pit, the water is not included; R. Noson says, the water is included.