ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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
(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)
(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
(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.
(b) The reason that he does not include 'Yeshivas ha'Dayanim' is - because
it is incorporated in Gezel and Aveidah.
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.
(c) Levi's Tana declines to include ...
1. ... Me'ilah in his list of P'rutos - because he is not concerned with
(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.
2. ... 'Aveidah - because it obviously has the same Din as Gezel.
(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
(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
(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
(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.