Previous daf

1)

(a) When Rebbi Yochanan said 'Ein Lemedin min ha'Kelalos, va'Afilu be'Makom she'Ne'emar Bo Chutz', he cannot have been referring directly to our Mishnah - since our Mishnah actually says 'Chutz'?

(b) We know that women are Chayavos to eat Matzah - from the Hekesh of "Lo Sochal Alav Chametz" to "Shiv'as Yamim Tochal Alav Matzos" (Re'ei), which appear in the same Pasuk, and from which we learn that whoever is Chayav the former is also Chayav the latter. Women are Chayavos in the Mitzvah of Simchah (eating Shalmei Simchah) - from the Pasuk "ve'Samachta Atah u'*Veisecha*" (Re'ei). And they are Chayavos to fulfill the Mitzvah of Hakhel - because the Torah writes there "ha'Anashim, ve'ha'Nashim ve'ha'Taf" (Vayelech).

(c) Women are peturos from Torah-study - from the Pasuk "ve'Limadtem Osam es Beneichem" (Eikev) - from which we derive 'Beneichem ve'lo Benosechem'. They are Peturos from Piryah ve'Rivyah - from the Pasuk in Bereishim "P'ru u'Revu, u'Mil'u es ha'Aretz ve'Chiveshuha", from which we derive that those who are included in Kibush (conquering the land) i.e. men, are included in the Mitzvah of P'ru u'Revu, to exclude women, who do not tend to participate in the former, are not Chayavos in the latter. And they are Peturos from the Mitzvah of Pidyon ha'Ben - from the word "Tifdeh" (Bo), which can also be read "Tipadeh", to teach us that whoever is included in "Tipadeh" (being redeemed i.e. males), is included in "Tifdeh" redeemimg), but not females, who are not redeemed, because the Torah writes there "ve'Chol Bechor Banecha Tifdeh", ' Banecha ve'lo Benosecha'.

(a) Whatever a Zav carries is Tamei, writes the Mishnah in Zavin, whereas whatever carries a Zav is Tahor, unless it is designated for lying or sitting on, or unless it is a person.

(b) The Mishnah which mentions Tum'as Mishkav and Tum'as Moshav of a Zav, omits the wooden handle attached to the saddle, which the rider holds on to, which also receives Tum'ah from a Zav - it is called 'Tum'as Merkav'.

(c) The exception to the K'lal in our Mishnah of 'ba'Kol Me'arvin Chutz min ha'Mayim u'min 'ha'Melach' - is mushrooms, which cannot be bought with the money of Ma'aser Sheni.

(a) Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina agree that salt-water may be used for an Eruv - because it is a 'Mazon'; since it can be used for dipping in one's bread.

(b) One of them forbids even salt-water to be purchased with Ma'aser money - because it is not called a P'ri (it does not grow from the ground), and we shall soon see how we learn from a 'Klal u'F'rat 'u'Chlal', that only what is called a P'ri may be purchased with Ma'aser Sheni money.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer suggested to Rebbi Yehudah ben Gadish - that perhaps he only heard about purchasing fish-juice with Ma'aser-Sheni money - when some of the fish-fat itself was mixed with the juice, but not otherwise.

(b) We see from this Beraisa that even the most lenient of the Tana'im permit only the purchase of fish-juice, which is called a P'ri - so how can Rebbi Yitzchak quote a Beraisa which permits buying salt-water with Ma'aser- Sheni money?

(c) Rav Yosef replies - that the Beraisa of Rebbi Yitzchak, which permits the purchase of salt-water with Ma'aser-Sheni money, speaks when one added some oil (which *is* a P'ri).

5)

(a) Buying water and salt with money of Ma'aser Sheni is permitted - only if one absorbs their price in the price of the oil.

(b) ben Bag Bag learns from ...

1. ... "ba'Bakar" - that one may purchase (with one's Ma'aser Sheni money) an ox together with its skin, which may be used for Chulin purposes without the need to redeem it.
2. ... "u'va'Tzon" - that one may purchase a sheep together with its wool (which is not an intrinsic part of the animal, like the skin is).
3. ... "u'va'Yayin" - that one may even purchase the jar that contains the wine together with the wine (which does not even grow with the wine, like the wool does).
4. ... "u'va'Shechar" - that one is even permitted to buy the seconds of wine (the dregs to which water has been added).

(a) Had the Torah written ...

1. ... "Shechar" and not Yayin, we would have permitted the purchase of figs from Ke'ilah, which intoxicate like wine; but not the jar together with the wine (which is a separate entity).
2. ... "Yayin" and not "Tzon", we would have permitted the purchase of the jar together with the wine that it contains, since the jar is needed to guard the wine; but not the wool, together with the sheep (since the wool is not needed like the jar is).

(b) Had the Torah intended to permit the skin of the animal (because it grows with it intrinscally), but not the wool of the sheep, then surely it should have inserted "Bakar" (which has skin but no wool) rather than "Tzon". By inserting "Tzon", the message would be that both the skin and the wool are permitted.

(c) That is why Rebbi Yochanan said that he would carry the clothes of anyone who could explain to him why, according to ben Bag-Bag, the Torah wrote "Bakar" as well as "Tzon", to the bath-house (something which is normally performed by a slave for his master).

(a) 'P'ri mi'P'ri' - in the context of what one may purchase with Ma'aser- Sheni money, means one thing which grows from another e.g. a calf from a cow, a lamb from a sheep or grapes from seeds. 'Gifulei Karka' - means something that grows from the ground. 'P'ri mi'P'ri' - excludes mushrooms, water and salt; 'Gidulei Karka' excludes fish.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah ben Gadish and Rebbi Eliezer, who both agree that fish may be bought with Ma'aser-Sheni money - learn a 'Ribuy, Mi'ut ve'Ribuy', rather than a 'Klal u'F'rat u'Chlal'. By doing so, they include everything from the Ribuy ("be'Chol Asher Te'aveh Nafsecha"), and exclude only a limited amount of things from the final 'P'rat' (i.e. water and salt according to Rebbi Yehudah ben Gadish, and fish-juice, too, according to Rebbi Eliezer).

(c) If fish are considered 'Gidulei Karka', like Abaye thought to say, then someone who ate a Putisa ought to receive five Malkus (including one for eating a Sheretz ha'Aretz), and not just four (two for a Sheretz ha'Mayim, one for "mi'Besaram Lo Sochelu" and one for "ve'Chol Asher Ein Lo Senapir ve'Kaskeses Lo Sochelu").

(d) Ravina ultimately explains the two interpretations of the 'K'lal u'F'rat u'Chelal' like this: the Tana who requires only 'P'ri mi'Pri ve'Gidulei Karka' includes birds (who also feed from the ground); whereas the Tana who requires also 'V'lad V'lados ha'Aretz' excludes also birds.