Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) "MA'ASER" OF "DEMAI"

(a) (Rav Yosef): Tana'im argue about this.

1. (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): (Demai is produce bought from an ignoramus. Most ignoramuses take Ma'aser; mid'Oraisa, Demai is permitted, but mid'Rabanan, one must be concerned for the minority and take Ma'aser). When separating Ma'aseros on Demai, one need not designate Ma'aser Oni (since in any case he keeps it himself, the poor cannot prove that Ma'aser Oni was not yet separated);
2. Chachamim say, one must designate it (he may eat it himself).
3. Suggestion: R. Eliezer holds that Tevel of Ma'aser Oni is Tovel (it is forbidden to eat produce before taking Ma'aser Oni), therefore he obligates taking Ma'aser Oni; Chachamim hold that it is not Tovel.

(b) Rejection (Abaye): If so, they should argue about whether or not one may eat (definite) Tevel before separating Ma'aser Oni!
(c) (Abaye): Rather, all agree regarding definite Tevel that it is Tovel;

1. They argue whether or not we are concerned that an ignoramus did not separate Ma'aser Oni.
2. R. Eliezer says, we are not concerned - since Ma'aser Oni is permitted everywhere and to everyone, an ignoramus separates it and eats it himself (even though he should give it to the poor);
3. Chachamim are concerned, perhaps he (did not know that a verbal declaration suffices and) did not want to toil to separate it.

(d) (Mishnah) Question: How much Tevel must one eat...?
(e) (Rav Bivi): Chachamim and R. Shimon argue about eating a wheat kernel, but all agree that one is not lashed for less than a k'Zayis of flour (it is not a full creation).
(f) (R. Yirmeyah): They also argue regarding flour.
(g) Question (Mishnah - R. Shimon): Don't you agree that one is liable for eating a (full) ant of any size?

1. Chachamim: That is because it is a full creation.
2. R. Shimon: A wheat kernel is also a full creation!
3. Inference: He only argues regarding a wheat kernel, for it is a full creation, he admits regarding flour!

(h) Answer: R. Shimon addresses Chachamim according to their reasoning:

1. I hold that even regarding flour, one is liable for any amount - you should admit to me regarding a wheat kernel, for it is a full creation!
2. Chachamim say, an ant has a Neshamah, it is a significant creation; a wheat kernel is not so important.

(i) Support (for R. Yirmeyah - Beraisa): If one eats any amount of (any food forbidden by a Lav) he is lashed;

1. The quantity of k'Zayis only applies regarding Korbanos (for food forbidden by Kares).

(a) (Mishnah): The following are punished by 40 lashes:

1. Eating Bikurim before Kri'ah (saying the Parshah), Kodshei Kodoshim outside the hangings (of the Mishkan, or outside the Azarah of the Beis ha'Mikdash), or Kodshei Kalim or Ma'aser Sheni outside the wall (of Yerushalayim);
2. Breaking a bone of a Korban Pesach brought in Taharah.

(b) One who leaves over meat of (even a) Tahor Korban Pesach or breaks a bone of a Pesach brought in Tum'ah (e.g. when most of Yisrael were Teme'im) is not lashed.
(c) R. Yehudah says, if one takes a mother bird sitting on her chicks or eggs, he is lashed, he has no Mitzvah to send it away;
(d) Chachamim say, he sends it away, he is not lashed;

1. The general rule is: one is not lashed for a Lav which has an Aseh to fix the transgression.

(e) (Gemara - Rabah bar bar Chanah): Our unauthored Mishnah is like R. Akiva, but Chachamim say Hanachah of (putting down) Bikurim is Me'akev (it is forbidden to eat them before this), Kri'ah is not Me'akev.
(f) Question Why didn't he say that our unauthored Mishnah is like R. Shimon?
(g) Answer: He teaches that R. Akiva holds like R. Shimon.

1. (Beraisa): "(Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'Sh'arecha)...U'Trumas Yadecha" - this refers to Bikurim.
2. Question (R. Shimon): What does this teach?
3. Answer #1: It forbids eating them outside the wall.
4. Rejection: A Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser (Sheni) teaches this!

i. Ma'aser is lenient, yet one who eats it outside the wall is lashed - Bikurim is stringent, all the more so, it is forbidden to eat it outside the wall!

5. Answer #2: It obligates lashes for eating Bikurim before Kri'ah.
6. "V'Nidvosecha" - this refers to Todah (thanksgiving offering) and Shelamim.
7. (R. Shimon): This cannot forbid eating them outside the wall - a Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser teaches this!

i. Rather, it obligates lashes for eating Todah or Shelamim before Zerikah (throwing the blood).

8. "U'Vchoros" - this refers to Bechor (a firstborn, which is a Korban).
9. (R. Shimon): This cannot forbid eating it outside the wall - a Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser teaches this!

i. It cannot forbid eating it before Zerikah - a Kal va'Chomer from Todah and Shelamim teaches this!
ii. Rather, it obligates (a Zar) lashes for eating Bechor, even after Zerikah.

10. "Bekarcha v'Tzonecha" - this refers to Chatas and Asham.
11. (R. Shimon): This cannot forbid eating it outside the wall (or before Zerikah or for a Zar who eats it) - a Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser (or Todah and Shelamim or Bechor) teaches this!

i. Rather, it obligates lashes for eating Chatas or Asham outside the hangings, even after Zerikah.

12. "Nedarecha" - this refers to Olah.
13. (R. Shimon): This cannot forbid eating it outside the wall (or before Zerikah or outside the hangings or for a Zar who eats it) - a Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser (or Todah...) teaches this!

i. Rather, it obligates lashes for eating Olah, even after Zerikah inside the hangings.

(a) (Rava): One should have children like R. Shimon (he expounds awesomely!), even though he is refuted:

1. The stringency of Bikurim (over Ma'aser) is that it is forbidden to Zarim - just the contrary, Ma'aser is more stringent, it is forbidden to an Onen (one who lost a relative today)!
2. The stringency of Todah and Shelamim (over Ma'aser) is that their blood and Emurim (Chelev) is offered on the Mizbe'ach - just the contrary, Ma'aser is more stringent, it can only be redeemed on minted money!
3. The stringency of Bechor (over Todah and Shelamim) is that it is Kodesh from the moment it is born - just the contrary, Todah and Shelamim are more stringent, they require Semichah, Nesachim and waving the chest and foreleg!
4. The stringency of Chatas and Asham (over Bechor) is that they are Kodshei Kodoshim - just the contrary, Bechor is more stringent, it is Kodesh from the moment it is born!
5. The stringency of Olah (over Chatas and Asham) is that it is Kalil (totally burned on the Mizbe'ach) - just the contrary, Chatas and Asham are more stringent, for they atone;

i. Moreover, all other Korbanos are more stringent than Olah, for both the Mizbe'ach and people consume (different parts of) them!

(b) Question: Rava refuted R. Shimon's Kal va'Chomerim - why did he say that one should have children like R. Shimon?
(c) Answer: According to the Kal va'Chomerim he makes, he wondrously inverts the verse to learn many laws.
(d) Question: Do we really warn (to give lashes) on account of a Kal va'Chomer?!

1. Even according to the opinion that we punish on account of a Kal va'Chomer, we cannot derive the Lav from a Kal va'Chomer!

(e) Answer #1: Indeed, R. Shimon did not mean that one is lashed for these, just that they are forbidden.

1. Question: But Rava said that if a Zar eats (a k'Zayis of) Olah before Zerikah outside the wall of Yerushalayim, according to R. Shimon he is lashed five times (sets of 39 lashes)!
2. Answer: He means, he transgresses five prohibitions.

(f) Objection: Our Mishnah teaches that one is lashed for Bikurim outside the wall, and Kodshei Kodoshim outside the hangings!