(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Metzia 55

BAVA METZIA 51-55 - Mrs. Estanne Abraham-Fawer has dedicated two weeks of Dafyomi study material to honor the second Yahrzeit of her father, Reb Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Weiner, who passed away 18 Teves 5761). May the merit of supporting and advancing the study of the Talmud be l'Iluy Nishmaso.



(a) We just used a Beheimah Temei'ah as an example of something that has Techilas Hekdesh, but no Sof Hekdesh, which means - that it neither goes on the Mizbei'ach nor is it built into the walls of the Beis Hamikdash.

(b) Rav Ashi asked Ravina that even if a Tamei animal is not subject to Sof Hekdesh, it is however, subject to Emtza Hekdesh which means - that Hekdesh Sheini (transferring its Kedushah on to another animal so that it requires redemption) applies to it just as it does to a Beheimah Tehorah.

(c) Ravina explained that since Sof Tum'ah does not apply to it (which is why there is no Chomesh), we learn from it that Sof Tum'ah of a Beheimah Tehorah does not require a Chomesh either. When Rav Zutra Brei de'Rav Mari asked Ravina why we go after Sof Hekdesh rather than Emtza Hekdesh, he initially replied - that it is preferable to learn Nitfas (Hekdesh Sheini) from Nitfas.

(d) Rav Zutra persisted that we should rather go after the Din by Techilas Hekdesh - since they are both followed by another Kedushah.

(a) Ravina replied with a statement of Rava, who extrapolated from the Pasuk "ve'Arach Alehah *ha*'Olah" - that the Olas ha'Tamid is always the first Korban to be brought each day.

(b) That D'rashah applies here too - because here too, the Torah writes " ... Beheimah *ha*'Temei'ah, implying that it is only the first animal that requires a Chomesh (vindicating Ravina once and for all).

(c) This D'rashah is based on the Pasuk "ve'Im ba'Beheimah ha'Temei'ah ... ", as we learned earlier. We cannot learn it directly from a 'Binyan Av' - because Sof Hekdesh by Beheimah Temei'ah is not subject to Chomesh (not out of Halachic considerations, but) because Sof Hekdesh itself is not applicable (as we explained), whereas by Hekdesh it is.

(a) We learned a Beraisa in support of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi. When the Tana says 'Parah Zu ... Tallis Zu Tachas Tallis shel Hekdesh, Hekdesho Paduy', he means - that (due to the principle 'Hekdesh Shaveh Manah she'Chilelo al Shaveh P'rutah, Mechulal') the transaction is valid (and he is permitted to benefit from the cow or the Tallis), even if the unassessed article with which he redeemed it was worth less than the Hekdesh article.

(b) He does however, remain obligated to make up the difference - as the Tana continues 've'Yad Hekdesh al ha'Elyonah', which also teaches us ...

(c) ... that should he asses the article at a higher price than the Hekdesh article is worth, the transaction is valid too, and he is obligated to give it to Hekdesh.

(d) The Tana then presents the same case, but where he assessed the cow or the Tallis at five Sela'im - concluding 'al Hekdesh Rishon Mosif Chomesh, al Hekdesh Sheini, Ein Mosif Chomesh'.

(a) Our Mishnah states 'ha'Ona'ah Arba'ah Kesef (Ma'ah), ve'ha'Ta'anah Sh'tei Kesef, ve'ha'Hoda'ah Shaveh P'rutah'. For the Ona'ah to be four Kesef, the sale must be - one Sela (as we have already learned).

(b) 've'ha'Ta'anah Sh'tei Kesef, ve'ha'Hoda'ah Shaveh P'rutah' refers to - Beis-Din, who will only obligate the Shevu'ah of Modeh be'Miktzas, if the claimant claimed at least two Ma'ah, and the defendant denied at least one P'rutah.

(c) This is one of a number of P'rutos. The Tana lists - another four.

(d) We know that one can betroth a woman with a P'rutah. The Din P'rutah connected with ...

1. ... Hekdesh is - Me'ilah.
2. ... Metzi'ah - the obligation to return it.
3. ... Gezel - the obligation for the Gazlan to carry it after the owner even as far as Madai, after denying and swearing his innocence.
(a) We ask that we have already learned the opening Din in an earlier Mishnah ('ha'Ona'ah Arba'ah Kesef'). We answer - that the Tana only mentions the opening statement because of the following one ('ha'Ta'anah Sh'tei Kesef ... ').

(b) Since, however, this too, is stated in a Mishnah in Bechoros - we have to admit, that the Tana inserts both statements only because of the third statement 'Chamesh P'rutos Hein'.

(a) According to Rav Kahana, our Mishnah does not include the minimum Shiur regarding Ona'ah in the list, because the minimum Shiur for Ona'ah is an Isar. This is - because it is the smallest denomination of silver coins (see also the Rosh Si'man 20).

(b) Levi cites a Beraisa that includes Ona'ah in the list of P'rutos. He includes 'Yeshivas ha'Dayanim' (that Beis-Din will not convene for a case of less than a P'rutah), which our Mishnah does not.

(c) And he omits the two cases of - Me'ilah and Aveidah.

(a) Despite the fact that our Tana mentions ...
1. ... Aveidah, he nevertheless needs to mention Gezel - to teach us the Din of taking the object all the way to Madai.
2. ... Gezel, he needs to mention Aveidah - to teach us that the obligation to announce it remains even though the article diminished in value to less than a P'rutah between the time he found it and the time he announced it.
(b) The reason that he does not include 'Yeshivas ha'Dayanim' is - because it is incorporated in Gezel and Aveidah.

(c) Levi's Tana declines to include ...

1. ... Me'ilah in his list of P'rutos - because he is not concerned with Kodshim.
2. ... 'Aveidah - because it obviously has the same Din as Gezel.
(d) He nevertheless mentions 'Yeshivas ha'Dayanim' (even though he has already mentioned Gezel), to preclude the opinion of Rav Ketina, who says - that Beis-Din will convene even for a Din of less than a P'rutah.
(a) Our Tana does not include Pidyon Ma'aser in his list - because he holds like the opinion which holds 'Ein be'Chomsho P'rutah'.

(b) And the reason that he does not then say 'Chomesh Ma'aser' is - because he is concerned with the Din of Keren, and not of Chomesh.

(a) Rava asked on Rav Ketina from a Beraisa. The Tana there learns from the Pasuk "Ve'*es* Asher Chata min ha'Kodesh Yeshalem ... " - that by a Din Hekdesh, Beis-Din will convene even for less than a Shaveh P'rutah, but not by a Din Hedyot.

(b) This poses a Kashya on Rav Ketina - whom we quoted earlier as saying that even for a Din Hedyot, Beis-Din will sit for a Din of less than a P'rutah.

(c) To conform with the Beraisa, we amend Rav Ketina, which now refers to the conclusion of the Din - in other words, once Beis-Din have convened, should the claimant then change his claim, and claim less than a P'rutah, Beis-Din will conclude its session.




(a) Our Mishnah then lists five Chumshin. T'rumah, T'rumas Ma'aser and T'rumas Ma'aser shel D'mai are all incorporated in T'rumah. We have already learned that if a Zar eats any of them be'Shogeg, he pays a fine of a Chomesh. The Tana not include Terumah Gedolah of D'mai in his list of T'rumos - because there is no such thing (because, seeing as the Amei ha'Aretz were definitely separating it, Chazal saw no reason to include it in the category of D'mai).

(b) The other two cases that the Tana does include in his list of things that are called T'rumah are - Chalah and Bikurim (since the Torah refers to them both as T'rumah).

(c) The Tana also adds the cases of someone who redeems his own Neta Re'vai and Ma'ser Sheini, which he reckons as one - because Ma'aser, which has no Pasuk of its own, is learned from Neta Revai.

(d) The third of the five cases is someone who redeems his own Hekdesh. The Tana learns from the Pasuk (in connection with Chomesh) "ve'Chi Yig'al Ish *mi'Ma'asro*" and "ve'Im *ha'Makdish* Yig'al es Beiso" respectively - that it is only the original owner of Ma'aser Sheini and Hekdesh who need to add a Chomesh, but not someone who redeems someone else's.

(a) The remaining two cases add a Chomesh due to the fact that they sinned. They are - someone who benefits from Hekdesh be'Shogeg or who steals and then denies and swears that he did not.

(b) What bothers Rebbi Elazar with the ruling that T'rumas Ma'aser shel D'mai pays a Chomesh is - the fact that the Rabbanan reinforce their own laws (D'mai, which is only de'Rabbanan) with the same fine as the Torah instigated to reinforce its laws.

(c) Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel establishes our Mishnah like Rebbi Meir, who rules that if a Sheli'ach brings a Get from overseas and fails to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav u've'Fanai Nechtam' - the man is obligated to divorce her, and their children are Mamzerim.

(d) According to the Chachamim, the baby is any event not a Mamzer. According to them - the Sheli'ach is obligated to retrieve the Get from the women and to return it to her with the declaration.

(a) We base Rebbi Meir's stringency on a statement by Rav Hamnuna in the name of Ula. He says that someone who deviates from the instructions of the Chachamim in the realm of Gitin, according to Rebbi Meir - must divorce his wife, and his children are Mamzerim.

(b) The Mishnah in D'mai discussing Ma'aser Sheini of D'mai, permits the redeeming of silver coins on to silver coins, and copper coins on to copper coins. He also permits the redeeming of silver coins on to copper ones.

(c) Rebbi Meir permits redeeming a copper coin of Ma'aser Sheini on to fruit provided one then transfers the Kedushah back from the fruit on to money - in order to fulfill the Torah's command "ve'Tzarta ha'Kesef be'Yadcha" that takes effect from the moment one redeems the original Ma'aser on to money.

(d) The Chachamim - permit him to take the fruit itself to Yerushalayim and to eat it there.

(a) If a Sela of Ma'aser and a Sela of Chulin got mixed up, the Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini instructs the owner - to transfer the Kedushah wherever it might be, on to copper coins, and then to transfer it from the copper coin on to the better of the two coins.

(b) The Tana then comments - that one may only redeem silver coins on to copper in an emergency (like the current case), and even then, only temporarily, as we explained.

(c) The Chachamim forbade it Lechatchilah for two reasons. One of them is because it is a degradation of Ma'aser. The other - because copper coins go rusty.

(d) Even the emergency concession - does not extend to redeeming silver coins with silver ones, because this is not the way the conventional way of redeeming something.

(a) On the assumption that the author of this (S'tam) Mishnah is Rebbi Meir, we ask that here Rebbi Meir does not reinforce D'mai (even goinf so far as to permit the redemption of one coin for another coin of the same denomination), in the way that he does Vaday (where he does not even allow redeeming a silver one for a copper one Lechatchilah); whilst in our Mishnah, he ascribes to D'mai the same reinforcement as he does to Vaday, as we just learned?

(b) To answer the Kashya - Rav Yosef differentiates between Pidyon (in Ma'aser Sheini), where he is more lenient by D'mai, and Achilah (our Mishnah), where he is equally strict.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,