REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 53
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) The Mishnah in Chalah lists the differences between Terumah and Bikurim
on the one hand, and Ma'aser Sheini on the other. If a Zar or a Kohen
Tamei eats Terumah or Bikurim, he is Chayav Miysah, and if a Zar eats them
be'Shogeg, he pays an extra fifth. Neither of which applies to Ma'aser
Why does the Tana then need to continue 've'Asurim le'Zarim'? Is
that not obvious?
(b) What are the ramifications of 've'Hein Nechsei Kohen'?
(c) Why is Ma'aser not 'Mamon Kohen'? Who is the author of this Mishnah?
(d) The former also require washing one's hands before eating and 'Ha'arev
Shemesh'. Why does Ma'aser not require ...
- ... washing one's hands before eating it? What did Mar say about someone who does so?
- ... Ha'arev Shemesh? When is a person who was Tamei permitted to eat Ma'aser?
(a) The Tana also differentiates between the above as regards Bitul.
how much must Terumah and Bikurim fall in order to become Bateil?
(b) Assuming that in contrast, Ma'aser is Bateil be'Rov, why can the Tana be
not be referring to S'tam Ma'aser, either after it enters Yerushalayim, or
before it reaches there?
(c) Then what is the Tana referring to?
(d) According to Rebbi Chiya ('Ma'aser Sheini she'Ein Bo Shaveh P'rutah ...
'), what is the problem with this Mishnah?
(a) On what grounds do we initially reject the proposal that Ma'aser is
different than Terumah and Bikurim inasmuch as it is not Bateil at all?
(b) And on what grounds do we refute that reason? Which case in the Beraisa
represents a Kula regarding Terumah?
(c) Then how *do* we know that the Tana does not mean that Ma'aser is not
Bateil at all?
(a) That Beraisa also establishes the Mishnah by Ma'aser Sheini that is less
than a Shaveh P'rutah.
What alternative does the Tana give to explain why
the Ma'aser is both unfit to eat and unfit to be redeemed?
(b) The Kashya remains however (on the first explanation), why he should not
be able to redeem it on an old used coin (like Rebbi Chiya)? How do we
initially answer this?
(c) So let him take a new coin and combine the Ma'aser that he has with ...
- ... other Ma'aser and redeem them together?
- ... D'mai, which is only mi'de'Rabbanan?
(a) We ask why he cannot then redeem two P'rutos worth of Ma'aser, on one
and a half of two P'rutos, and the current half P'rutah of Ma'aser, on the
remaining half P'rutah.
Answers to questions
On what grounds do we reject this suggestion?
(b) So why not ...
(c) That is why it is not a Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin. Alternatively, we
established the Mishnah when the Ma'aser entered Yerushalayim and was taken
- ... initially combine the half P'rutah together with the one and half P'rutos of Ma'aser?
- ... redeem the one and a half P'rutos of Ma'aser on to an Isar, and the half P'rutah in question on to part of what remains (there are eight P'rutos in an Isar)?
Then why can the the mixture containing the Ma'aser not simply
be returned to Yerushalayim and eaten there?
(a) We just explained that the mixture containing the Ma'aser cannot simply
be returned to Yerushalayim and eaten there, because the Tana speaks when it
(too) became Tamei.
What did Rebbi Elazar Darshen from the Pasuk in Re'ei
(in connection with the redemption of Ma'aser Sheini) "Ki Lo Suchal
Se'eiso"? How does he interpret the word 'Se'eis'?
(b) We therefore establish the Mishnah (not by the Ma'aser itself, but) by
food that was purchased with the money of Ma'aser in Yerushalayim. According
to whom are we speaking, bearing in mind that, according to the Chachamim in
the Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini, even that can be redeemed?
(c) What is Rebbi Yehudah's reason?
(d) On what grounds do we reject this explanation? Why can the author of the
Mishnah (that we established by Nichnas li'Yerushalayim ve'Yatza') not be
(a) So we establish it by Tahor Ma'aser.
How do we establish the Mishnah
to explain why he cannot return the Ma'aser to Yerushalayim and eat it
(b) Rava's statement poses a problem however.
What did he mean when he
said 'Mechitzos li'K'lot de'Rabbanan'?
(c) What do we now extrapolate from this that poses a Kashya on the current
explanation of the Mishnah?
(d) How do we counter this Kashya?
(a) Rav Huna bar Yehudah Amar Rav Sheishes establishes the second reason in
the Beraisa ('ve'she'Nichnas li'Yerushalayim ve'Yatza') not as an
independent reason (as we learned until now), but as an addition to the
first one ('she'Ein Bo Shaveh P'rutah').
Which Kashya caused the Tana to
(b) He goes on to learn the Sugya as the first Lashon learned it (ending
with 'Lo P'lug').
Then why does the Tana need to establish it by less than
a Shaveh P'rutah? Will the Din differ if the Ma'aser is worth a P'rutah?
(c) How would what we thought regarding Ma'aser that is less than a P'rutah
have affected the Mishnah in Chalah (regarding 'Bitul be'Rov')?
(a) What does the Beraisa Darshen from the Pasuk "Im Ga'ol Yig'al Ish
The Beraisa 'Ma'aser Sheini she'Ein Bo Shaveh P'rutah, Dayo she'Yomar Hu
ve'Chomsho Muchulal Al Ma'os ha'Rishonos' bears out Chizkiyah's statement
that we quoted earlier.
(b) What does Rav mean when he says 'Ein *Bo*'?
(c) What does Rav Asi say?
(d) Which other pair of Amora'im argue over the same point as Rav and Rav
What do we extrapolate from the word 'Dayo'? Why
does it pose a Kashya on the opinion of Rav and Rebbi Yochanan?
(a) We ask whether the Chomesh which the Torah obligates the owner to add
when he redeems his Ma'aser Sheini means a Chomesh 'mi'Legav' or 'mi'Lebar'.
What is 'a Chomesh ...
(b) What is the basic difference between an owner who redeems what he was
Makdish and a stranger who redeems it (and the same will apply to Ma'aser
- ... mi'Legav'?
- ... mi'Lebar'?
(a) The Beraisa discusses who has to redeem the Ma'aser, in the event that
both the owner and a stranger offer to redeem the owner's Hekdesh. In the
event that they both offer the same price, on what basis does the owner have
the first right?
(b) Should the owner offer to pay twenty Zuz, and the stranger twenty-one,
how much must the owner pay?
(c) Seeing as we make him pay the extra Sela that the stranger offered, why
does he not pay twenty-six and a fifth of a Sela?
(d) What will be the Din if the owner offers twenty Zuz, and the stranger
(a) What do we prove from this Beraisa?
Answers to questions
(b) What is the proof?