Previous daf

1)

(a) The case of 'ha'Marbeh ba'Ma'asros' is - is when the owner counts four measures, declaring the entire fifth one Ma'aser (instead of only half of it).

(b) He may eat the remainder of the produce ('Peirosav Mesukanim').

(c) When the Mishnah in D'mai says 'u'Ma'asrosav Mekulkalin' - it means that the Ma'aser that he separated is a mixture of Ma'aser and Chulin, and will remain forbidden until he rectifies it.

(d) We refute the Kashya from here on Rabah, who holds 'Kol she'Eino ba'Zeh Achar Zeh, Af be'Bas Achas Eino' (in which case none of the crop should have become Ma'aser) - by pointing out that Ma'aser is different, inasmuch as it is possible to declare half of each kernel Ma'aser. Consequently, when he declared the extra tenth Ma'aser, only half of each kernel actually became Ma'aser.

(a) Rabah says (re. Ma'aser Beheimah) that if the tenth and the eleventh animals entered the pen simultaneously - they are both Ma'aser?

(b) Considering that one cannot declare half an animal Ma'aser Beheimah, Rabah will reconcile this with his own principle by pointing out that Ma'aser Beheimah is different - inasmuch as Ma'aser takes effect even if it declared erroneously (as we shall see shortly), in which case, it can also take effect on two animals simultaneously.

(c) The Mishnah there says that if the owner declared the ninth animal to be the tenth, the tenth, the ninth, and the eleventh, the tenth - all three are Hekdesh.

(d) One of the animals is Ma'aser, and the other two Shelamim. Number eleven is brought directly as Shelamim, whereas the other two animals graze in a field until they become blemished. Then he brings a Chulin animal on to which he transfers the Kedushah of the Shelamim (whichever one it is), and eats both animals as Ma'aser Beheimah.

(a) In the previous case, had he declared the eleventh animal to be the tenth after declaring the tenth to be the tenth - the animal would have remained Chulin.

(b) According to Chizkiyah, if someone Shechts his Korban Todah on eighty Chalos (instead of forty), forty of them are Kadosh. According to Rebbi Yochanan - none of them are Kadosh.

(c) Based on the fact that the Kedushah does not take effect on Chalos Todah which were declared Hekdesh erroneously, nor will it take effect on a second set of forty Chalos, the problem that this creates for Rabah is - how can he rule against Chizkiyah who was the Rebbe of Rebbi Yochanan?

(a) We answer this Kashya by referring to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's interpretation of the Machlokes (between Chizkiyah and Rebbi Yochanan). According to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, if the owner said ...

1. ... 'Yikadshu Arba'im mi'Toch Shemonim' - everyone agrees that forty of the eighty loaves are Kadosh (since there is no reason why they should not be).
2. ... 'Lo Yikadshu Arba'im Ela-im-Kein Yikadshu Shemonim' - none of them become Kadosh (due to Rabah's principle).

(b) And they argue in a case - when he brought eighty loaves without specifying what the extra forty were for.

(c) Chizkiya holds that forty loaves are Kadosh - because he only brought the extra forty in case something happens to the first set.

(d) Whereas according to Rebbi Yochanan - he meant to bring a big Korban consisting of eighty loaves, in which case none of them are Kadosh, because of Rabah's principle.

(a) Rava established our Mishnah ('ha'Mekadesh Ishah u'Bitah ... ') like Rabah ('Kol she'Eino ba'Zeh Achar Zeh ... '). Rava is about to teach the principle - 'Kidushin she'Ein Mesurin le'Bi'ah, Lo Havu Kidushin' (that could serve equally well as the source of our Mishnah, since neither of the sisters would be permitted to the Mekadesh [in case she was Achos Ishto).

(b) And he only quoted Rabah's principle as the source, in order to counter Rami bar Chama, who tried to establish the Pasuk "Ishah el Achosah ... " by Bas Achas' (to demonstrate that this was not possible).

(c) According to Rava, 'Kidushin she'Ein Mesurin le'Bi'ah, Lo Havu Kidushin' - Abaye says ' ... Havu Kidushin'.

(d) Rava cites as his source, bar Ahina - who learns from "Ki Yikach Ish Ishah u'Ba'alah" - that 'Kidushin must be fit to result in Bi'ah, otherwise the Kidushin is not valid.

(a) We can infer from our Mishnah 'ha'Mekadesh Ishah u'Vitah ... Einan Mekudashos' - that had he said that he is only Mekadesh one of the two, then the Kidushin would be valid (a Kashya on Rava who says that Kidushin she'Ein Mesurin le'Bi'ah Lo Havu Kidushin'.

(b) Rava counters from the Seifa, which seems to support his opinion. In the case of the five women, we can imply from the conclusion 'Ein Achyos Mekudashos' - 'Ha Nochriyos, Mekudashos'.

(c) The Tana cannot be speaking when the Mekadesh said (with re. to the five women) 'Kulchem' - because that would be 'K'ni At va'Chomor', which does not acquire.

(d) The case of 'K'ni At va'Chamor' is the case of - someone who gives gifts simultaneously both to a child who is born and to one who is still a fetus.

7)

(a) If the Mekadesh did not say to the women 'Kulchem' - he must have said 'Achas Mikem'

(b) This is a support for Rava - because the Mishnah concludes 'Ein Achyos Mekudashos', a proof that 'Kidushin she'Ein Mesurin le'Bi'ah, Lo Havu Kidushin'.

(c)

1. Abaye then adds to the Seifa - 've'Im Amar 'ha'Re'uyah le'Bi'ah Tiskadesh Li ... ', explaining why neither sister is betrothed, even though he was Mekadesh only one of them.
2. Rava explains 'Ishah u'Bitah O Ishah va'Achosah ke'Achas' in the Reisha - to mean 'Achas me'Ishah u'Bitah, Achas me'Ishah va'Achosah'.

(a) Rava establishes the Mishnah in 'ha'Omer' 'ha'Mekadesh es Bito S'tam, Ein ha'Bogros bi'Ch'lal' implying that the Ketanos are all included (even though it cannot lead to Bi'ah) - when in fact, there is only one Bogeres and one Ketanah (though it would make no difference even if there were more Bogros).

(b) The Tana refers to 'Bogros' (in the plural) - because he is referring to fathers and daughters in general.

(c) The problem with this explanation is - that there does not then appear to be any Chidush.

(d) We answer initially that the Tana speaks when the Bogeres appointed her father a Sheli'ach, and that the Chidush is that a man gives precedence to his small daughter, because of the financial gains involved. We conclude however, that, even assuming that the Bogeres grants her father permission to keep the Kidushin money for himself - a father would naturally tend to fulfill the Mitzvah of marrying of his small daughter, before performing a favor on behalf of an older daughter.

(a) Rebbi Meir in the Mishnah in ha'Omer say that a man who has a number of daughters from two wives, and who declares that he betrothed his big daughter - might mean any of his daughters, apart from his very youngest (seeing as each one is bigger than those who are younger than her).

(b) Rava reconciles his opinion (re. 'Kidushin she'Ein Mesurin le'Bi'ah') with Rebbi Meir - by establishing the Mishnah when at the time of the Kidushin, the father had specified which daughter he meant (in which case it was a case of 'Kidushin ha'Mesurin le'Bi'ah'), only he later forgot which one he had specified.

(c) He proves his explanation from the Lashon 've'Eini Yode'a ... ', which, unlike 've'Eino Yadu'a, implies that he knew before but has currently forgotten.

(d) Rebbi Meir's Chidush is - to preclude Rebbi Yossi, in whose opinion we take for granted that he meant the very oldest, because a person tends to be specific, in order to avoid the sort of doubts that Rebbi Meir has to contend with.

(a) The Mishnah in Yevamos says 'Mi she'Kidesh Achas mi'Sh'tei Achyos ve'Eini Yode'a Eizoh Kidesh - Nosen Get la'Zeh ve'Get la'Zeh'.

(b) We have the same problem with Rava from this Mishnah, we give the same answer ('ke'she'Hukru ... ') and we even bring the same proof (from the Lashon 've'Eini Yode'a'). The Tana's Chidush lies in the Seifa. He say in the Seifa that if the Mekadesh dies leaving ...

1. ... one brother - that brother must perform Chalitzah with each sister.
2. ... two brothers - then one of them performs Chalitzah with one of the sisters, following which the other brother may perform Yibum with the second one.

(c) The Seifa comes to teach us - that the second brother may perform Yibum only after the first one has performed Chalitzah (to remove the Isur of Achos Zekukaso re. his brother), and not vice-versa.

(d) Even if they both perform Yibum however - they are not obligated to divorce their wives (since, due to the fact that each brother married one of the sisters, the Isur of Achos Yevimto no longer exists, and neither of them is subject to any Isur).

(a) In the same Mishnah in Yevamos, the Tana discusses 'Shenayim she'Kidshu Sh'tei Achyos, Zeh Eino Yode'a Eizoh Kidesh, ve'Zeh Eino Yode'a Eizoh Kidesh' - concluding 'Zeh Nosen Sh'nei Gitin, ve'Zeh Nosen Sh'nei Gitin'.

(b) The Tana says in the Seifa that if both men die, assuming that ...

1. ... each man has one brother - Zeh Choletz li'Sh'teihen, ve'Zeh Choletz li'Sh'teihen'.
2. ... one of them had one brother, and the other one, two - 'ha'Echad Choletz li'Sh'teihen, ve'ha'Shenayim, Echad Choletz ve'Echad Meyabem'.

(c) The Tana's Chidush, according to Rava is - that even after his brother has performed Chalitzah, the second brother is permitted to perform Yibum, only after the other Yavam has performed Chalitzah, because otherwise, he may transgress the Isur of Yevamah la'Shuk (whereas in the Reisha, the Tana was concerned with the Isur of Achos Zekukaso).