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'.
What is then the value of the object that is being redeemed? What does Rebbi Yoshiyah then hold?

(b) Which Tana requires only a *fifth* of the Keren?

(a) We ask whether the fifth is Me'akev.
What is the basis of the She'eilah?

(b) What are its ramifications?

(c) The Beraisa states that there is no Chomesh and no Biy'ur by D'mai. What are the implications of the latter Halachah?

(d) We infer from here that the Din of Keren of Ma'aser Sheini does apply. What is the basis of the distinction between the Keren and the Chomesh?

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

(b) Rebbi rules like Rebbi Eliezer on Shabbos but like Rebbi Yehoshua on weekdays.
Why is that?

(c) How do we know that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua argue ...

1. ... on Shabbos?
2. ... on weekdays?

(d) How do initially attempt to establish the Machlokes?

(a) But Rav Papa concludes that both Tana'im hold 'Chomesh Eino Me'akev'. Then why does Rebbi Yehoshua forbid him to eat the Ma'aser before he has paid the Chomesh?

(b) And what does Rebbi Eliezer hold?

(c) Rebbi Yochanan claims that Rebbi Yehoshua concedes that he is permitted to eat *Hekdesh*, even though he has not yet paid the Chomesh.
What is the basis of this claim?

(d) We refute this statement however, on the basis of another Beraisa. What does Rebbi say there in connection with the same Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua?

(a) We therefore conclude that what Rebbi Yochanan really said was that they both agree regarding Hekdesh, but only on Shabbos.
On which dual factors is Rebbi Yochanan's statement based?

(b) What do we learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Bechukosai (in connection with the redemption of Hekdesh) "ve'Yasaf Chamishis *Kesef* Erk'cha Alav"?
2. ... in Bechukosai (in connection with a Zar who eats Terumah be'Shogeg) "ve'Nasan la'Kohen es *ha'Kodesh*"?
3. ... in Re'ei (in connection with the redemption of Ma'aser Sheini) "*ve'Tzarta* ha'Kesef be'Yadcha"?

(c) What She'eilah does Rami bar Chama ask in connection with all three D'rashos?

(d) When the She'eilah came before Rava, how did he resolve all three She'eilos with one swoop?

(a) Ravina supports Rava's ruling from a Beraisa. The Beraisa states that someone who steals Terumah but does not eat it, must pay double 'D'mei Terumah'.
What does this mean?

(b) What is he obligated to pay should he then eat it?

(c) How does he pay ...

1. ... the Keren and its Chomesh for eating it?
2. ... the 'Keren' for stealing it?

(d) What does Ravina prove from here?

7)

(a) The Torah writes in Vayikra (in connection with someone who stole, and who then denied and swore that he did not), "ve'Chamishisav Yosef Alav". What does the Mishnah in Bava Kama extrapolate from the fact that "va'Chamishisav" is written in the plural?

(b) At which point does he no longer pay a Chomesh on the Chomesh?

(c) And what does the Mishnah in T'rumos say about a Zar who designated Chulin plus a Chomesh as payment for T'rumah that he ate be'Shogeg? What Lashon does the Torah use there?

(d) Does this Halachah extend to ...

1. ... *drinking* T'rumah wine?
2. ... *anointing* oneself with T'rumah oil?
3. ... *burning* T'rumah?
4. ... eating *Tamei* T'rumah?

(a) Rava observes that in connection with Ma'aser Sheini, where the Torah also writes "va'Chamishiso Yosef Alav" (in the singular), there is no Mishnah which obligates one to pay a Chomesh on a Chomesh, nor does anyone ask whether one perhaps should.
Why is that?

(b) What is then the difference between T'rumah, 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? What does the Torah write by T'rumah that it does not write by Ma'aser?

(c) What, on the other hand, does the Mishnah teach us about T'rumah but not about Hekdesh?

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

1. ... not apply to Hekdesh, even though it does apply to T'rumah?
2. ... apply nonetheless?

(a) Why can we not 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"?

(b) We ask why we cannot resolve the She'eilah regarding Hekdesh from Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi.
What does Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi say regarding Hekdesh Sheini?

(c) Rav Papi answered Ravina from Rava, who defines the Chomesh as Hekdesh Rishon.
Why is that?

(d) We finally resolve the She'eilah from Rav Tivyumi in the name of Abaye.
What did he Darshen from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ve'Yasaf Chamishis Erk'cha Alav"?

(a) What does Rebbi Yehoashua ben Levi learn from the Pasuk "ve'Im *ha'Makdish* Yig'al es Beiso, ve'Yasaf Chamishis Erk'cha Alav"?

(b) A Beraisa expert Darshened in front of Rebbi Elazar the Pasuk "ve'Im ba'Beheimah ha'Temei'ah u'Fadah be'Erk'cha".
What sort of Hekdesh is the Pasuk talking about?

(c) The Tana is comparing other Kodshim to Bedek ha'Bayis because of two specific characteristics.
What are they?

(a) The Tana concludes 'Mo'alin Bah'.
What category of Hekdesh does it preclude from Me'ilah by saying 'Kulah la'Shamayim'?

(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.
Why else is not possible to learn like that?

(c) So what then, is the Tana referring to when he says 'Techilas Hekdesh'?
From what is he precluding 'Sof Hekdesh'?

(d) Then why did he refer to it as 'Me'ilah'?

Next daf