Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

7) THE SALE OF THINGS FORBIDDEN TO BENEFIT FROM

(a) (Mishnah): If he sold (any of these) and was Mekadesh with the money, she is Mekudeshes.
(b) Question: From where do we know this?
(c) Answer: The Torah taught by idolatry "You will be Cherem (condemned) as it" - whatever you will make of (exchange for) it, it is as the idolatry (and you may not benefit from it).

1. Inference: By other things the Torah forbids, one may use what he receives in exchange for them.

(d) Question: Why don't we learn from idolatry to other prohibitions?
(e) Answer: Idolatry and Shemitah are two verses, one of which could have been learned from the other, so we do not learn from them.
(f) Question: What is the source regarding Shemitah?
(g) Answer: "It is Yovel, it will be Kodesh to you" - just as Kodesh imparts a prohibition to money exchanged for it, also Shemitah produce.
(h) Suggestion: Just as Kodesh imparts a prohibition (to money exchanged for it) and it itself becomes permitted, also Shemitah produce.
(i) Rejection: "It will be" - the Shemitah produce remains forbidden.

1. One who buys meat with Shemitah produce - when the time of Bi'ur comes, both must be eradicated;
2. If he bought fish with the meat - the fish gets the sanctity of Shemitah in place of the meat;
3. If he bought wine with the fish - the wine gets the sanctity of Shemitah in place of the wine;
4. The rule is - the last thing bought is as Shemitah, and the original Shemitah produce retain the law of Shemitah.

(j) Question: This fits the opinion that we may not learn from two verses, one of which could have been learned from the other.

1. The opinion that says that we may learn - how does he know that she is Mekudeshes with money from the sale of other forbidden things?

(k) Answer: The Torah wrote "For it (idolatry) is Cherem", and "It is Yovel" - only these things impart a prohibition to what they are exchanged for.

(a) (Mishnah): A man, even if he is not a Kohen or Levi, was Mekadesh with any of the following - she is Mekudeshes:

1. Terumos, Ma'aseros or gifts of a Chulin animal that are given to a Kohen;
2. Water or ashes of the red heifer.

(b) (Gemara) Ula: Tovas Hana'ah (the right to decide to whom one will give gifts) is not considered to have monetary value.
(c) Question (Rava - Mishnah): A man, even a Yisrael, was Mekadesh with Terumos, Ma'aseros or gifts - she is Mekudeshes.
(d) Answer (Ula): The case is, the Yisrael inherited Tevel (untithed produce) from his mother's father (who was a Kohen);

1. Ula holds that we considered the gifts to have been separated from Tevel (so it is as if the grandfather (and later the Yisrael) fully owned them, not just the Tovas Hana'ah).

(e) Question (R. Chiya bar Avin): Is Tovas Hana'ah considered as money?
(f) Answer (Rav Huna - Mishnah): A man, even a Yisrael, was Mekadesh with Terumos, Ma'aseros or gifts - she is Mekudeshes.
(g) Question (R. Chiya bar Avi): But we established the case to be a Yisrael that inherited Tevel from his mother's father!

(h) Rav Huna: You are a Hotza'ah.
(i) R. Chiya bar Avin was embarrassed - he though Rav Huna meant that he distorts things.

1. Really Rav Huna meant that R. Chiya holds as Rav Asi of Hutzal.

(j) Suggestion: The following Tana'im argue whether Tovas Hana'ah is as money.

1. (Beraisa - Rebbi): Reuven stole Shimon's Tevel - he must pay the value of Tevel;
2. R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, he pays the value of the Chulin one keeps from the Tevel.
3. Suggestion: Rebbi says that he also pays the Tovas Hana'ah because (Shimon lost the privilege to give the Terumah and Ma'aseros to whom he wanted, and) this is as money; R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says he does not pay it, for it is not as money.

(k) Rejection #1: All agree, Tovas Hana'ah is not as money; the case is, Shimon inherited Tevel from his grandfather (a Kohen);

1. They argue whether we consider gifts to have been separated from Tevel - Rebbi says that we do (so it is as if Shimon's grandfather (and later Shimon) fully owned them); R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says that we do not.

(l) Rejection #2: All agree that gifts are considered to have been separated from Tevel, and Tovas Hana'ah is not as money; they argue regarding Shmuel's law.

1. (Shmuel): One who separates a single blade of wheat as Terumah - this exempts the entire harvest.
2. Rebbi holds as Shmuel (therefore, Shimon could have given a miniscule amount of Terumah, so we do not deduct the 2% or so that people usually give as Terumah);
3. R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah argues on Shmuel (he holds, one must separate at least 1 part in 60 of Terumah, so Reuven need not pay for this).

(m) Rejection: #3: Both do not hold as Shmuel; letter of the law, the thief should not have to pay for the amount that Shimon would have had to give the Kohen;

1. Rebbi holds that we fine the thief to pay for it.

(n) Rejection: #4: Both hold as Shmuel; letter of the law, we should not deduct from Reuven's liability the amount of Terumah that would have been separated;

1. R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah holds that we deduct it to penalize Shimon for having delayed separating Terumah.

(a) (Mishnah): A man was Mekadesh with water or ashes of the red heifer - she is Mekudeshes.
(b) Contradiction (Mishnah): One who takes wages for a Mitzvah - the Mitzvah is invalid;

1. Regarding a judge or witness - his judgment/testimony is invalid;
2. To sprinkle the water of the red heifer, or to sanctify the water with the ashes - the water and ashes do not Metaher.

(c) Answer (Abaye): One may take (and Mekadesh) with wages for the exertion of transporting and drawing the water; one may not take (or Mekadesh) with wages for sprinkling or sanctifying.

1. Support: Our Mishnah says that one may Mekadesh with the water and ashes of the red heifer, that Mishnah speaks of sprinkling and sanctifying.

10) DEVIOUS KIDUSHIN

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven told his friend (Shimon) 'Go Mekadesh Plonis to me'; Shimon went and was Mekadesh Plonis to himself - she is Mekudeshes to him;
(b) Similarly: Reuven told Leah 'You are Mekudeshes to me after 30 days'; Moshe was Mekadesh her during the 30 days - she is Mekudeshes to Moshe;

1. If Moshe is a Kohen and Leah is a Bas Yisrael, she may eat Terumah.

(c) Reuven told Leah 'You are Mekudeshes to me from now and after 30 days'; Moshe was Mekadesh her during the 30 days - she is Mekudeshes and not Mekudeshes;

1. If he is a Kohen and she is a Bas Yisrael, or he is a Yisrael and she is a Bas Kohen, she may not eat Terumah.

(d) (Gemara): Reuven told his friend...
(e) (Beraisa): Shimon's Kidushin takes effect - but he acted as a swindler.

1. Our Mishnah agrees - when it says that 'he went', it means, he went with deceit.

(f) Question: Why does our Mishnah say that he told his friend, and a precious Mishnah (50A) said that he told an agent (to Mekadesh a woman in a certain place)? (g) Answer: In each case, it shows a bigger Chidush.

1. In our Mishnah, one might have thought that it is only considered deceit if an agent is Mekadesh Plonis to himself, for a man relies on an agent, but not if he asks a friend;

i. We hear, this is not so - even by a friend, it is deceit.

2. In that Mishnah, one might have thought that only by a friend, if he is Mekadesh in a different place, she is not Mekudeshes, for he did not expect his friend to exert himself to find her anywhere else (and therefore he is only authorized to Mekadesh her where he specified);

i. But one expects an agent to exert himself, one might have thought that he merely suggests where to find her, but the agent is authorized to Mekadesh her anywhere - we hear, this is not so.