Previous daf

1)

(a) The Mishnah in Chalah lists the differences between Terumah and Bikurim on the one hand, and Ma'aser Sheini on the other. If a Zar or a Kohen Tamei eats Terumah or Bikurim, he is Chayav Miysah, and if a Zar eats them be'Shogeg, he pays an extra fifth. Neither of which applies to Ma'aser Sheini.
Why does the Tana then need to continue 've'Asurim le'Zarim'? Is that not obvious?

(b) What are the ramifications of 've'Hein Nechsei Kohen'?

(c) Why is Ma'aser not 'Mamon Kohen'? Who is the author of this Mishnah?

(d) The former also require washing one's hands before eating and 'Ha'arev Shemesh'. Why does Ma'aser not require ...

1. ... washing one's hands before eating it? What did Mar say about someone who does so?
2. ... Ha'arev Shemesh? When is a person who was Tamei permitted to eat Ma'aser?

(a) The Tana also differentiates between the above as regards Bitul.
Into how much must Terumah and Bikurim fall in order to become Bateil?

(b) Assuming that in contrast, Ma'aser is Bateil be'Rov, why can the Tana be not be referring to S'tam Ma'aser, either after it enters Yerushalayim, or before it reaches there?

(c) Then what is the Tana referring to?

(d) According to Rebbi Chiya ('Ma'aser Sheini she'Ein Bo Shaveh P'rutah ... '), what is the problem with this Mishnah?

(a) On what grounds do we initially reject the proposal that Ma'aser is different than Terumah and Bikurim inasmuch as it is not Bateil at all?

(b) And on what grounds do we refute that reason? Which case in the Beraisa represents a Kula regarding Terumah?

(c) Then how *do* we know that the Tana does not mean that Ma'aser is not Bateil at all?

(a) That Beraisa also establishes the Mishnah by Ma'aser Sheini that is less than a Shaveh P'rutah.
What alternative does the Tana give to explain why the Ma'aser is both unfit to eat and unfit to be redeemed?

(b) The Kashya remains however (on the first explanation), why he should not be able to redeem it on an old used coin (like Rebbi Chiya)? How do we initially answer this?

(c) So let him take a new coin and combine the Ma'aser that he has with ...

1. ... other Ma'aser and redeem them together?
2. ... D'mai, which is only mi'de'Rabbanan?

(a) We ask why he cannot then redeem two P'rutos worth of Ma'aser, on one and a half of two P'rutos, and the current half P'rutah of Ma'aser, on the remaining half P'rutah.
On what grounds do we reject this suggestion?

(b) So why not ...

1. ... initially combine the half P'rutah together with the one and half P'rutos of Ma'aser?
2. ... redeem the one and a half P'rutos of Ma'aser on to an Isar, and the half P'rutah in question on to part of what remains (there are eight P'rutos in an Isar)?

(c) That is why it is not a Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin. Alternatively, we established the Mishnah when the Ma'aser entered Yerushalayim and was taken out again.
Then why can the the mixture containing the Ma'aser not simply be returned to Yerushalayim and eaten there?

6)

(a) We just explained that the mixture containing the Ma'aser cannot simply be returned to Yerushalayim and eaten there, because the Tana speaks when it (too) became Tamei.
What did Rebbi Elazar Darshen from the Pasuk in Re'ei (in connection with the redemption of Ma'aser Sheini) "Ki Lo Suchal Se'eiso"? How does he interpret the word 'Se'eis'?

(b) We therefore establish the Mishnah (not by the Ma'aser itself, but) by food that was purchased with the money of Ma'aser in Yerushalayim. According to whom are we speaking, bearing in mind that, according to the Chachamim in the Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini, even that can be redeemed?

(c) What is Rebbi Yehudah's reason?

(d) On what grounds do we reject this explanation? Why can the author of the Mishnah (that we established by Nichnas li'Yerushalayim ve'Yatza') not be Rebbi Yehudah?

(a) So we establish it by Tahor Ma'aser.
How do we establish the Mishnah to explain why he cannot return the Ma'aser to Yerushalayim and eat it there?

(b) Rava's statement poses a problem however.
What did he mean when he said 'Mechitzos li'K'lot de'Rabbanan'?

(c) What do we now extrapolate from this that poses a Kashya on the current explanation of the Mishnah?

(d) How do we counter this Kashya?

(a) Rav Huna bar Yehudah Amar Rav Sheishes establishes the second reason in the Beraisa ('ve'she'Nichnas li'Yerushalayim ve'Yatza') not as an independent reason (as we learned until now), but as an addition to the first one ('she'Ein Bo Shaveh P'rutah').
Which Kashya caused the Tana to add it?

(b) He goes on to learn the Sugya as the first Lashon learned it (ending with 'Lo P'lug').
Then why does the Tana need to establish it by less than a Shaveh P'rutah? Will the Din differ if the Ma'aser is worth a P'rutah?

(c) How would what we thought regarding Ma'aser that is less than a P'rutah have affected the Mishnah in Chalah (regarding 'Bitul be'Rov')?

(a) What does the Beraisa Darshen from the Pasuk "Im Ga'ol Yig'al Ish *mi*'Ma'asro"?

(b) What does Rav mean when he says 'Ein *Bo*'?

(c) What does Rav Asi say?

(d) Which other pair of Amora'im argue over the same point as Rav and Rav Asi?

11)

(a) We ask whether the Chomesh which the Torah obligates the owner to add when he redeems his Ma'aser Sheini means a Chomesh 'mi'Legav' or 'mi'Lebar'.
What is 'a Chomesh ...

1. ... mi'Legav'?
2. ... mi'Lebar'?

(b) What is the basic difference between an owner who redeems what he was Makdish and a stranger who redeems it (and the same will apply to Ma'aser Sheini)?

(a) The Beraisa discusses who has to redeem the Ma'aser, in the event that both the owner and a stranger offer to redeem the owner's Hekdesh. In the event that they both offer the same price, on what basis does the owner have the first right?

(b) Should the owner offer to pay twenty Zuz, and the stranger twenty-one, how much must the owner pay?

(c) Seeing as we make him pay the extra Sela that the stranger offered, why does he not pay twenty-six and a fifth of a Sela?

(d) What will be the Din if the owner offers twenty Zuz, and the stranger twenty-five?

(a) What do we prove from this Beraisa?

(b) What is the proof?

Next daf