Previous daf

1)

(a) Tana'im actually argue over whether 'Chomesh' means mi'Legav or mi'Lebar. Rebbi Yoshiyah says "ve'Yasaf Chamishiso Alav", 'she'Yehei Hu ve'Chomsho Chamishah'. The value of the object that is being redeemed is - four Shekalim, and Rebbi Yoshiyah holds 'Chomesh mi'Lebar'.

(b) The Tana who requires only a fifth of the Keren is - Rebbi Yonasan.

(a) We ask whether the fifth is Me'akev. The basis of the She'eilah is - whether the fifth is a separate obligation (the amount plus a fifth), or part of the payment (five Zuz for Ma'aser worth four).

(b) And its ramifications are - whether the owner is permitted to eat his redeemed Ma'aser outside Yerushalayim, before he has paid the Chomesh.

(c) The Beraisa states that there is no Chomesh and no Biy'ur by D'mai. The implications of the latter Halachah are - that the owner does not need include the Chomesh of Ma'aser Sheini in his declaration of Biy'ur Ma'asros at the end of the third and the sixth years.

(d) We infer from here that the Din of Keren of Ma'aser Sheini does apply - because it is Me'akev by Vaday, whereas the Chomesh is not.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer permits someone who has paid the Keren of Ma'aser but not the Chomesh, to eat it. Rebbi Yehoshua - forbids it.

(b) Rebbi rules like Rebbi Eliezer on Shabbos - because of Kavod Shabbos, but like Rebbi Yehoshua on weekdays.

(c) We know that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua argue ...

1. ... on Shabbos - because Rebbi said 'Nir'in Divrei Rebbi Yehoshua be'Chol'.
2. ... on weekdays - because he said 'Nir'in Divrei Rebbi Eliezer be'Shabbos'.

(d) Initially, we attempt to establish the Machlokes - as to whether Chomesh is Me'akev (Rebbi Yehoshua) or not (Rebbi Eliezer).

(a) But Rav Papa concludes that both Tana'im hold 'Chomesh Eino Me'akev', and nevertheless, Rebbi Yehoshua forbids him to eat the Ma'aser before he has paid the Chomesh - because of a decree in case he forgets to pay it.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer - is not worried that he will forget.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan claims that Rebbi Yehoshua concedes that he is permitted to eat *Hekdesh*, even though he has not yet paid the Chomesh - based on the fact the treasurers of Hekdesh will claim it from him (so he cannot forget to pay it).

(d) We refute this statement however, on the basis of another Beraisa, where Rebbi says 'Nir'in Divrei Rebbi Eliezer be'Hekdesh, ve'Divrei Rebbi Yehoshua be'Ma'aser'. Clearly then, Rebbi Yochanan's ruling may well be the opinion of Rebbi, but Rebbi Yehoshua still argues with Rebbi Eliezer over it.

(a) We therefore conclude that what Rebbi Yochanan really said was that they both agree regarding Hekdesh, but only on Shabbos - because a. the treasurers will claim Hekdesh's debt from him, and b. because the Pasuk in Yeshayah writes "ve'Karasa la'Shabbos Oneg" (turning eating on a Shabbos into a Mitzvah).

(b) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Yasaf Chamishis *Kesef* Erk'cha Alav" - that one cannot redeem Hekdesh with Karka.
2. ... "ve'Nasan la'Kohen es *ha'Kodesh*" - that a Zar who eats Terumah be'Shogeg must pay the Kohen with food that is fit to be 'Kodesh' (i.e. Terumah).
3. ... "*ve'Tzarta* ha'Kesef be'Yadcha" - that one can only redeem Ma'aser Sheini with a minted coin.

(c) Rami bar Chama asks - whether all these restrictions apply to the accompanying Chomesh too.

(d) When the She'eilah came before Rava, he resolved all three She'eilos with one swoop - by citing the word "Alav" which the Torah writes together with each Chomesh, to teach us that the Chomesh has basically the same Din as the Keren.

(a) Ravina supports Rava's ruling from a Beraisa. The Beraisa rules that someone who steals Terumah but does not eat it, must pay double 'D'mei Terumah' - meaning that he returns the Keren, and pays the Kefel in cash but at the cheap price that a Kohen would pay someone who was selling it (since it is only fit for Kohanim to eat when they are Tahor).

(b) Should he then eat it, he is obligated to pay two times the Keren (one for what he ate and one for the outstanding Kefel) plus a Chomesh for eating it.

(c) He pays ...

1. ... the Keren and its Chomesh for eating it - in kind (Chulin that is fit to become Terumah, as we explained earlier).
2. ... the 'Keren' for stealing it - in cash at a cheap price, as we just explained.

(d) Ravina proves from here - that the Chomesh has the same Din as the Keren, corroborating Rava's ruling.

7)

(a) The Torah writes in Vayikra (in connection with someone who stole, denied and swore that he did not steal "va'Chamishisav Yosef Alav". The Mishnah in Bava Kama extrapolates from the fact that "va'Chamishisav" is written in the plural - that if the Ganav subsequently designated the Chomesh and then swore again, then, besides the Chomesh on the Keren, he also has to pay a Chomesh on that Chomesh.

(b) He no longer pays a Chomesh on the Chomesh - from the moment the Chomesh on which he swears is worth less than a P'rutah.

(c) The Mishnah in T'rumos states that a Zar who designated Chulin plus a Chomesh as payment for Terumah that he ate be'Shogeg - also has to pay a Chomesh on that Chomesh, should he eat it after designating it, even though the Torah there writes "*va'Chamishiso*" (and not 'Chamishisav').

(d) This Halachah ...

1. ... extends to drinking T'rumah wine - because 'Achilah' incorporates 'Shesiyah' ...
2. ... and to anointing oneself with T'rumah oil - because of the principle 'Sichah ki'Shesiyah' (anointing is akin to drinking).
3. ... does not extend to burning T'rumah, only to the previous cases.
4. ... extends to eating Tamei T'rumah, as well as to Tahor Terumah.

(a) Rava observes that in connection with Ma'aser Sheini, where the Torah also writes "va'Chamishiso Yosef Alav" (and not 'Chamishisav'), there is no Mishnah which obligates one to pay a Chomesh on a Chomesh, nor does anyone ask whether one perhaps should - because it is obvious that one does not.

(b) The difference between Terumah, where there is a Din of Chomesh al Chomesh, and Ma'aser, where there is not, despite the fact that in both cases, the Torah uses the singular - lies in the 'Vav' in "ve'Yasaf" which the Torah writes by T'rumah, implying that one adds and adds again (like Chazal Darshen in Toldos, on the Pasuk "ve'Yiten Lecha" [see Rashi there]; whereas by T'rumah it only writes "Yosef".

(c) On the other hand, the Mishnah teaches us that T'rumah pays a Chomesh on a Chomesh, but does not say this about Hekdesh.

(d) Considering that in both cases, the Torah uses the Lashon "ve'Yasaf", the Din of a Chomesh on a Chomesh ...

1. ... might not apply to Hekdesh, even though it does apply to T'rumah - because (based on the principle 'Gor'in u'Mosifin ve'Dorshin') perhaps the reason by Terumah is (not as we explained, but) because we add the extra "Vav" to "va'Chamishiso", which then reads "va'Chamishisav", which we cannot do by Hekdesh, where the Torah writes (not "Chamishiso", but) "Chamishis".
2. ... apply nonetheless - because maybe the D'rashah is due to the extra 'Vav' alone, which implies to add again (as we explained earlier).

(a) We cannot resolve the problem (that the Torah writes "Chamishis" by Hekdesh, and not "Chamishiso") by adding the 'Vav' in the middle of the word to read "Chamishiyos" - because we never find 'Gor'in u'Mosifin ve'Dorshin' in the middle of the word, only at the very beginning or at the very end.

(b) We ask why we cannot resolve the She'eilah regarding Hekdesh from Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who says - that one does not add a Chomesh to Hekdesh Sheini (as will be explained shortly). Note, that Hekdesh Sheini refers to a Hekdesh animal that became blemished and the owner transferred its Kedushah on to another animal.

(c) Rav Papi answered Ravina from Rava, who defines the Chomesh as Hekdesh Rishon - because it comes automatically (nobody declared it Hekdesh in place of Hekdesh Rishon).

(d) We finally resolve the She'eilah from Rav Tivyumi in the name of Abaye, who Darshened from the Pasuk "ve'Yasaf Chamishis Erk'cha Alav" - that the Chomesh is subject to a Chomesh, just like the money of one's Erech is.

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi learns from the Pasuk "ve'Im ha'Makdish Yig'al es Beiso, ve'Yasaf Chamishis Erk'cha Alav" - that only Hekdesh Rishon is subject to a Chomesh, but not Hekdesh Sheini.

(b) A Beraisa expert Darshened in front of Rebbi Elazar the Pasuk "ve'Im ba'Beheimah ha'Temei'ah u'Fadah be'Erk'cha" - referring to Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis (which belong to Hekdesh, but is not intrinsically holy).

(c) The Tana is comparing other Kodshim to Bedek ha'Bayis because of two specific characteristics - 1. that it is initially Hekdesh (Hekdesh Rishon), and 2. that it all goes to Hashem ('Kulah la'Shamayim'), and neither the owner nor the Kohen receives anything from it.

(a) The Tana concludes 'Mo'alin Bah'. 'Kulah la'Shamayim' precludes - Shelamim from Me'ilah (see Tosfos DH 'le'Inyan').

(b) In fact however, the Tana cannot be referring to Me'ilah, because if it were, then to preclude 'Sof Hekdesh' from Me'ilah would be incorrect. It is also not possible to learn like that - because the Pasuk is talking about Chomesh, and not about Me'ilah.

(c) When the Tana says 'Techilas Hekdesh', he is actually precluding 'Sof Hekdesh' from Chomesh (like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi).

(d) He referred to it as 'Me'ilah' - because the Din of Chomesh is connected to that of Me'ilah.

Next daf