Previous daf

1)

(a) If one buys wine from the Kutim - one needs to separate Terumah, Ma'aser Rishon (from which one will later separate Terumas Ma'aser) and Ma'aser Sheni.

(b) The Beraisa (of 'ha'Lokei'ach Yayin') speaks when he has no vessels into which to pour out the Ma'asros - which explains why the Tana has to come on to Bereirah, in order to designate them.

(c) The Ma'aser Sheni that he designates must be redeemed on a coin that he sets aside for this purpose.

(d) Rebbi Meir, who holds 'Yesh Bereirah' - permits one to do this.

3)

(a) Rebbi Yossi rules - that if two women purchased the four birds for their Korban Leidah together, or who gave the money for their birds to the Kohen, then the Kohen is permitted to sacrifice whichever birds he likes as Olos and whichever he likes as Chata'os. This suggests that Rebbi Yossi holds 'Yesh Bereirah', clashing with his opinion in the Beraisa of 'Halokei'ach Yayin'?

(b) The Chidush of Rebbi Yossi, according to Rabah, in whose opinion the Mishnah in Kinin speaks when the women made a prior condition (see Tosfos DH 'ke'she'Hisnu') - is that if the women did not specifically designate the birds when they originally picked them, then it is only the Kohen who can subsequently designate them for their respective roles, when he sacrifices them, and that this cannot be done verbally, on the part of either the owner or the Kohen (thereby corroborating Rav Chisda, who issues this ruling independently).

4)

(a) If a Chaver buys two bundles of vegetables, one for himself, and one on behalf of an Am ha'Aretz - according to the Chachamim in the Beraisa, he is obligated to Ma'aser the bundle of the Am ha'Aretz, before giving it to him - because they hold 'Ein Bereirah'. And since it is possible that the bundle that he later gives to the Am ha'Aretz is his (the Chaver's) own (which he is now selling to him in exchange for the other bundle, which belongs to the Am ha'Aretz), he is obligated to Ma'aser it, because a Chaver is forbidden to sell un'Ma'asered fruit to an Am ha'Aretz.

(b) Rebbi Yossi holds - that the Chaver is permitted to give the bundle to the Am ha'Aretz without taking Ma'asros, because he holds 'Yesh Bereirah'.

(c) In order to reconcile Rebbi Yossi here with his opinion by 'ha'Lokei'ach Yayin', where he holds 'Ein Bereirah' - the Gemara switches the opinions of Rebbi Yossi and the Rabbanan (in the case currently under discussion): Rebbi Yossi rules 'Tzarich le'Aser', and the Chachamim, 'Ein Tzarich le'Aser'.

(a) Since we have just established that Rebbi Yossi holds 'Ein Bereirah' - we have no choice but to amend the Beraisa (where he says that if someone redeems his Ma'aser Sheni on the coin that comes to hand, and then takes out a coin, the Ma'aser is duly redeemed), to make it read that the Ma'aser Sheni is *not* redeemed.

(b) The Gemara is forced to switch Rebbi Yossi's opinion in the Beraisa of Ma'aser Sheni (in spite of the fact that this also entails switching it in the previous Beraisa - of Agudas Yerek) - because of the Seifa of the Beraisa, which says that Rebbi Yossi concedes that if he said 'Ma'aser she'Yesh Li be'Soch Beisi Yehei Mechulal al Sela Chadashah she'Ta'aleh be'Yadi min ha'Kis (and there was only one new coin in the purse) she'Chilal'. This clearly implies that in the Reisha, Rebbi Yossi holds 'Lo Chilal' - because he holds 'Ein Bereirah'.

(a) Eruv is different than all the other cases of Bereirah quoted above - inasmuch as it is purely mi'de'Rabanan, as we already mentioned earlier, and that is what prompts Rava to ask who the Tana could possibly be, who holds even by Eruv 'Ein Bereirah'; whereas all the Tana'im mentioned earlier refer to cases which are d'Oraysa (Tevel, Ma'aser Sheni etc.).

(b) Rav Nachman did not answer that the Tana concerned is Tana de'Bei Ayo - because he was unaware of the Beraisa that quotes Ayo.

(c) The Rabbanan of Rebbi Shimon say - that if someone places his Eruv for all the Shabbasos of the year, with the express intention of deciding each week whether he will make use of the Eruv or not, then as long as he decides before nightfall that he wishes to use the Eruv, it becomes valid, but not if reaches his decision after nightfall - because they hold 'Ein Bereirah' (even by Eruv).

(a) Rav Yosef reconciles Rebbi Shimon's opinion with the Rebbi Shimon whom we quoted earlier (in the Beraisa of 'Halokei'ach Yayin mi'Bein ha'Kutim') as holding 'Ein Bereirah - by switching the opinions of Rebbi Shimon (who will now hold that the Eruv is *not* an Eruv, and the Rabbanan, who hold that it *is*.

(b) Rav Yosef did not answer that Eruv is different, because it is de'Rabbanan - since, in his opinion, those who hold 'Yesh Bereirah', hold like that even by Bereirah d'Oraysa, whereas those who disagree, hold 'Ein Bereirah', even by Bereirah de'Rabbanan.

(a) When Rava, explaining Rebbi Shimon, requires 'she'Shireha Nikarin' - he means that Rebbi Shimon requires that one takes one's Ma'asros *before* drinking the wine, in order to fulfill the condition of 'Shireha Nikarin', that when one has separated the Terumah, the remainder of the produce is immediately distinguishable (which is not the case by 'ha'Lokei'ach Yayin', since there, when he declares the remaining wine Terumas Ma'aser etc, it is not distinguishable.

(b) According to Rava, asks Abaye, why does the Beraisa say 'Terumas ha'K'ri ha'Zeh u'Ma'asrosav Besocho ... Rebbi Shimon Omer, Kara Hashem'? - There too, at the time when he declares the Ma'asros, there is no distinction between them and the crops that remain, until such time as he actually separates them?

(c) Rava answers - that here too, it is 'Shireha Nikarin' - since he specifically said *Besocho*, and the outer section of the crops, is definitely distinguishable from the middle, which is the section that he declared to be Ma'aser.

(a) The Gemara finally quotes from another Beraisa - that Rebbi Shimon's reason (for prohibiting Ma'asering the wine that he purchased from the Kutim in advance, is not because he holds 'Ein Bereirah', but out of concern that, after he has declared the various Ma'asros on the wine in the jar, the jar may just break, with the result, that all the wine that one drank is Tevel (retroactively) - since it now transpires, that what he separated is retroactively not valid.

(b) Although Rebbi Shimon himself holds of 'Reishis, she'Shireha Nikarin' (which is sufficient reason to forbid drinking the wine without first separating the Ma'asros), he nevertheless presented Rebbi Meir with the reason of 'perhaps the jar will break open', as if to say: even though you disagree with the principle of 'Reishis, she'Shireha Nikarin', won't you at least admit to the suspicion that the jar might break open?