Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) BEING KOVE'A FOR MA'ASER

(a) (R. Yanai): There is no obligation to tithe produce until it enters through the door of the house - "Bi'arti ha'Kodesh Min ha'Bayis";
(b) (R. Yochanan): Even entering a Chatzer is Kove'a ('fixes') produce for Ma'aser (forbids eating casually before tithing) - "V'Ochlu vi'Sh'arecha"
(c) Question: What does R. Yochanan learn from "Min ha'Bayis"?
(d) Answer: It teaches that a Chatzer is Kove'a only if it resembles a house, i.e. it is guarded.
(e) Question: What does R. Yanai learn from "vi'Sh'arecha"?
(f) Answer: It teaches that a house is Kove'a only if it entered through the gate (the normal entrance), to exclude if it entered through the roof or Karfef (storage area).
(g) Question (against both - Rav Chanina Chuza'ah - Beraisa): "K'Nafshecha" - the worker has the same law as the owner;

1. Just as the owner can eat without tithing, also a worker.
2. Inference: A buyer must tithe before eating! (Rashi - a sale is Kove'a no more than final processing; Tosfos - the Amora'im did not distinguish between a buyer and an owner).
3. Suggestion: This applies even in the field.

(h) Answer (Rav Papa): No - the case is, a date tree is in a garden; the foliage extends into a Chatzer (according to R. Yanai - into a house).
(i) Question: If so, also the owner must tithe before eating!
(j) Answer: No - the owner's primary concern is the tree itself - since the tree is in the garden, the fruit is Kavu'a only when it is all brought inside;

1. The buyer only cares about what he bought - since that is in the Chatzer (or house), it is Kavu'a.

(k) Question: Mid'Oraisa, must one really tithe bought produce?!

1. The stores of Beis Hino were destroyed three years before Yerushalayim because they stuck to Torah law (and neglected a Rabbinical enactment).

2. "Aser...V'Ochalta" - not what you sell;
3. "Tevu'as Zar'echa" - not what you buy.

(l) Answer: Indeed, a sale is Kove'a the produce mid'Rabanan; mid'Oraisa, it is exempt.
(m) Question: (If a buyer is exempt, also a worker) - what does "K'Nafshecha" come to teach?
(n) Answer (Beraisa): "K'Nafshecha" - just as if a person muzzles himself he is exempt (from lashes), also if he muzzles a worker.
(o) Question (Mar Zutra - Mishnah): The final processing for Ma'aser for gourds and pumpkins is from when Yifkesu.

1. (R. Asi): This is when the flower falls off the top.
2. Suggestion: This is even in the field!

(p) Answer: No, in the house.
(q) Question: If so (the Chidush is, it is exempt until then) - it should not say 'from when Yifkesu', rather, 'not until Yifkesu'!
(r) Answer: Had it said that, one might have thought until all the flowers fall off;

1. 'From when Yifkesu' teaches, once they start to fall off.

(s) Question (Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Nachman - Beraisa): After final processing of Tevel (untithed produce), one who eats it is liable; the final processing is Hachnasah.

1. Suggestion: Hachnasah means gathering it, even in the field.

(t) Answer #2: R. Yanai only said that entering the house is Kove'a regarding grapes and olives (which one plans to eat) - but regarding grain, (which one piles up in the field), the Torah explicitly says ("Ka'Dagan Min ha'Goren" - Bamidbar 18) that it becomes Kavu'a there!

(a) We have learned that a person eats attached produce, and ("Lo Sachsom Shor b'Disho" teaches) that an animal eats detached produce (when they work);
(b) Question: How do we know that a person eats detached produce?
(c) Answer #1: A Kal va'Chomer teaches this.

1. There is no verse permitting an ox to eat attached produce, yet the Torah says it eats detached produce; man, whom the Torah explicitly permits to eat attached produce, all the more so detached!

(d) Objection: We cannot learn from an ox, for it is forbidden to muzzle it!
(e) Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer teaches that it is also forbidden to muzzle man!

1. There is no Mitzvah to help animals survive, yet we are forbidden to muzzle them; man, about whom we are commanded "V'Chei Achicha Imach", all the more so it is forbidden to muzzle him!

(f) Rejection: "K'Nafshecha" - (the law of) a worker is like the owner himself;

1. If a person muzzles himself he is exempt, also if he muzzles a worker.

(g) Question (b) remains - how do we know that a person eats detached produce?
(h) Answer #2: It says "Kamah" twice - only one is needed to teach that man eats attached produce, the other is used to teach that he eats detached.
(i) Answer #3 (R. Ami): We do not need an extra verse for this - "B'Cherem Re'echa" - this includes when he was hired to carry detached grapes!

(a) Question: How do we know that an animal eats attached produce?
(b) Answer #1: A Kal va'Chomer teaches this.

1. There is no verse permitting man to eat detached produce, yet the Torah says he eats attached; an ox, which the Torah commands us to let it eat attached produce, all the more so it eats detached!

(c) Objection: We cannot learn from man, for we are commanded to help him survive!
(d) Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer teaches that we are commanded to help animals survive!

1. It is not forbidden to muzzle man, yet we are commanded to help him survive; animals, which we may not muzzle, all the more so we are commanded to help them survive!

(e) Rejection: "V'Chei Achicha Imach" - we are commanded to help man survive, not animals.
(f) Question (a) remains - how do we know that an animal eats attached produce?
(g) Answer #2: It says "Re'echa" twice - only one is needed to teach that man eats attached produce, the other is used to teach that animals eat attached produce.