Previous daf

1)

(a) When Rebbi Meir says 'Terumah le'Kohen, u'Ma'aser Rishon le'Levi', he might be coming to teach us that Ma'aser is given specifically to a Levi - to preclude the opinion of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, who maintains that it may be given to a Kohen, too.

(b) In fact, he is coming to teach us that, not only does one give Ma'aser to a Levi, but also that only a Levi may eat it. We might learn this from the Lashon 'Rebbi Elazar *Matiro* le'Kohen' that follows in the Mishnah (though the following questions seem to refute this explanation). And we might even infer it from Rebbi Meir's own words - because if he only comes to preclude the opinion of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, why does he need to add 'Terumah la'Kohen'?

(c) 'Rebbi Elazar (ben Azaryah - see Tosfos) *Matiro* le'Kohen'; a strange statement - since it implies that there is someone who forbids a Kohen to eat Ma'aser, which of course, is not true.

(d) So we amend it to read - 'Nosno af le'Kohen'.

(a) Rebbi Meir learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Ki es Ma'aser B'nei Yisrael Asher Yarimu la'Hashem Terumah" - that just as Terumah is forbidden to Zarim, so too, is Ma'aser.
2. ... "u'Meisu *Bo* Ki Yechaleluhu" - that a Zar is not Chayav Misah for eating it be'Meizid ("Bo* [bi'Terumah] 've'Lo be'Ma'aser').
3. ... "ve'Yasaf Chamishiso *Alav*" - that, if he eats it be'Shogeg, he does not need to pay the extra fifth that one does by Terumah ("Alav" 've'Lo al Ma'aser').

(b) Rav Acha Brei de'Rabah quotes these Derashos 'mi'Shmei di'Gemara' - meaning that he did not invent them, but that he heard them from his Rebbe, who heard them from his Rebbe ... all the way back to Rebbi Meir himself.

(a) According to the Rabbanan, Torah compares Ma'aser to Terumah (in the Pasuk in Korach) - to teach us that Tevel of Ma'aser Rishon is forbidden just like Tevel of Terumah.

(b) One is not Chayav Misah - for eating Ma'aser Rishon, Sheini or Ani.

(c) Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Lo Suchal le'Echol bi'She'arecha ... " (by Ma'aser Sheini) and "ve'Achlu bi'She'arecha ve'Savei'u" (by Ma'aser Ani in the third year) - that, just as the latter Pasuk is clearly speaking about Ma'aser Ani, so too, is the former. Taken out of context of the rest of the Pasuk, the Torah is therefore coming to introduce a La'av for eating Tevel of Ma'aser Ani.

(d) We need the Hekesh of Ma'aser to Terumah - to teach us that someone who eats Tevel of Ma'aser (Rishon or of) Ma'ser Ani is Chayav Misah (see Tosfos Yeshanim DH 'I').

(a) Establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Meir will not help to explain the Seifa - because the Tana says there 'bas Levi le'Kohen u'Bas Kohen le'Levi, Lo Tochal Lo bi'Terumah ve'Lo be'Ma'aser', and even according to Rebbi Meir, how will Zarus apply there?

(b) We establish the Mishnah in connection with her giving her Sh'li'ach permission to take Terumah from her husband's crops. The Tana learns from the Pasuk "va'Achaltem Oso be'Chol Makom Atem u'Vateichem" - that a bas Yisrael who is *married* to a Levi (but not if she is just betrothed to him), is permitted to appoint her own Sh'li'ach to separate Terumas Ma'aser on behalf of her husband.

(c) We know that the Pasuk is not coming to permit the wife of a bas Levi to *eat* Ma'aser - because if marriage permits the wife of a Kohen to eat Terumah, then it will certainly permit the wife of a Levi to eat Ma'aser (which is less stringent than Terumah).

(a) According to Mar Brei de'Ravina, the Seifa comes to forbid a bas Levi to receive Ma'aser (and a bas Kohen to receive Terumah) without her husband in attendance. Some Amaro'im (in 'Nos'in al ha'Anusah') ascribe the prohibition of giving Terumah to a woman who comes on her own to the granary - to the Isur of Yichud (which one is likely to transgress under these circumstances), a reason that goes well with Mar Brei de'Ravina's explanation.

(b) According to others, it is because her husband may divorce her, and we are afraid that the owners, unaware that she is now divorced, may continue to give her Ma'aser, even though she has now become a Zarah.

(c) We counter 'u'le'Ta'ameich, Gerushah bas Kohen Mi Lo Achlah bi'Terumah' - referring to the Mishnah in Nos'in al ha'Anusah 'Ishah Ein Cholkin Lah Terumah al ha'Goren', where some explain because of a divorcee. Since when, we are asking, may a divorcee who is a bas Kohen, not eat Terumah?

(a) So we finally forbid both a bas Kohen to receive Terumah and a bas Levi to receive Ma'aser, at the granary - because a bas Yisrael who was married to a Levi or a Kohen, but who is now divorced.

(b) And despite the fact that we are not talking about eating, but about receiving a portion, the Tana nevertheless mentions that they are 'betrothed' (despite the fact that the same prohibition will apply even if they are married) - only because of the Reisha, where it is specifically a bas Yisrael who is *betrothed* to a Kohen who is forbidden to eat Terumah.

7)

(a) According to Rebbi Akiva in the Beraisa, Terumah is given to a Kohen, and Ma'aser Rishon, to a Levi. Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah says - that Ma'aser may be given to a Kohen, too.

(b) Rebbi Akiva's source is the Pasuk in Korach "ve'el *ha'Levi'im* Tedaber ... ". Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, we explain, will hold like the statement of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi - who says that in twenty-four places in T'nach, the Kohanim are referred to as Levi'im, and this is one of them.

(c) Rebbi Akiva agrees with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's statement in principle, only in his opinion, this Pasuk cannot be one of those twenty-four places - because the Torah also writes there "va'Achaltem Oso be'Chol Makom", and whereas a Levi may eat Ma'aser anywhere (even in a Beis ha'K'varos), a Kohen may not.

(d) Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah explains the Pasuk "va'Achaltem Oso *be'Chol Makom*" - to mean that Ma'aser is not confined to the walls of Yerushalayim, but can be eaten anywhere, and that it may be eaten by someone who is Tamei (the second part of the Derashah is unclear, since it has nothing to do with "be'Chol Makom").

(a) Rebbi Akiva moved the entrance to that garden from which Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah used to take Ma'aser Rishon - so that the sole access to it was via a Beis ha'K'varos (and Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah was a Kohen).

(b) He did that - because, in his opinion, Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah had no right to collect Ma'aser Rishon.

(a) The Mishnah in Sotah states that Yochanan Kohen Gadol nullified the Mitzvah of Viduy Ma'aser - because the text " ... ve'Gam Nesativ la'Levi ... " was no longer correct, seeing as he himself instituted that one may also give it to the Kohanim.

(b) Rebbi Yonasan and the elders argue over the reason for Chazal punishing the Levi'im. According to one of them, it was because most of the Levi'im did not return to Eretz Yisrael with Ezra - according to the other, it was so that the Kohanim should have something to fall back on when they were Tamei.

(c) We reject this version of their Machlokes - because there is no justification to penalize the Levi'im purely in order to benefit the Kohanim.

(a) In fact, everyone agrees that the punishment was due because they failed to return from Bavel. What they argue over is to whom Ma'aser was to be given; whether it is exclusively to the poor, or whether the Kohanim are also considered Tamei during the time that they are Tamei.

(b) Even assuming that the Kohanim during their days of Tum'ah are also considered poor, Rebbi Akiva nevertheless moved the entrance of that garden to face a grave-yard - because Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah was a wealthy man, and even if other Kohanim may be considered poor when they are Tamei, he was certainly not (Agados Maharsha).

(c) We know that most of the Levi'im did not go back with Ezra - because so we are told by a Pasuk in Ezra (see Tosfos DH 'u'mi'B'nei')?

(d) The change that took place in the judicial system of Eretz Yisrael as a result of most of the Levi'im remaining in Bavel - was the fact that whereas previously, they used to appoint police officers from the Levi'im, they now began appointing them from among the Yisre'eilim.

(a) If a bas Yisrael ...

1. ... married, first a Kohen, and then, after he died, a Levi - she may eat Ma'aser.
2. ... remained with a son from both husbands - she may eat Ma'aser.
3. ... then married a Yisrael - she may eat only Chulin.

(b) If she had a son from the Yisrael too, and then first her Yisrael husband and then, her son from him, died - she may eat Ma'aser.

(c) And if ...

1. ... her son from her Levi husband then died - she may once again eat Terumah.
2. ... her son from her Kohen husband then died, too - she is permitted to eat only Chulin.

(a) Exactly the same situation exists with regard to a bas Kohen who marries a Yisrael and a Levi, but in the reverse. If a bas Kohen marries a Yisrael, who dies leaving her with a son, and she then marries a Levi, who also dies leaving her with a son, she may ...

1. ... not eat Terumah.
2. ... eat Ma'aser.

(b) Should she then marry a Kohen, who dies, leaving her with a son - she may eat Terumah.

(c) If all three sons then die - she may return to her father's house and eat Terumah.