ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Makos 19
MAKOS 16-20 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications
for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) A Zar who eats Bikurim - is Chayav Misah.
(b) The Chiyuv Misah come into effect - the moment the Bikurim enter the
Azarah (before which he is merely guilty of stealing from the Kohanim).
(c) We support Rava bar Ada Amar Rebbi Yitzchak (the author of this
statement) with a Beraisa, where Rebbi Eliezer states that if a batch of
Bikurim is partly inside the Azarah and partly outside - then what is
outside is considered Chulin and what is inside is considered Hekdesh.
(a) We support Rav Sheishes, who considers the Hanachah crucial to the
Mitzvah of Bikurim, but not the Keri'ah, with a Beraisa. One of three things
that Rebbi Yossi says there, concerns eating Ma'aser Sheini within the walls
of Yerushalayim nowadays. This might be permitted - on the basis of the
principle that the Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael is still intact (otherwise the
produce would not be subject to Ma'asros in the first place).
(b) We learn that it is in fact not - from Bechor, which we know cannot be
brought nowadays (as we shall see shortly).
(c) We query this 'Mah Matzinu' however - on the grounds that Bechor
requires its blood to be sprinkled and its Emurin to be brought, on the
Mizbe'ach (whereas Ma'aser does not).
(d) Since he cannot learn it from Bechor, Rebbi Yossi tries to learn it from
Bikurim. The problem he has with that is - that Bikurim require Hanachah
(which Ma'aser does not).
(a) So Rebbi Yossi concludes - by quoting the Pasuk "Ve'achalta Sham Lifnei
Hashem Elokecha ... ", which compares Ma'aser to Bechor (and one cannot ask
a 'Pircha' on a Hekesh).
(b) Rav Ashi rejects the proof (that Keri'ah is not crucial, from the fact
that Rebbi Yossi omits Keri'ah in his Pircha) - on the grounds that, even if
it is not, we will need to explain why he did not mention it together with
Hanachah (seeing as, when all's said and done, it is a Mitzvah which does
not apply to Ma'aser).
(c) Rebbi Yossi does not in fact, mention Keri'ah in the Pircha, too -
because he only asks from Hanachah, which applies consistently to all cases
of Bikurim (whereas Keri'ah does not apply to the fruit of a Ger, who cannot
say "Asher Nishba Hashem la'Avoseinu").
(d) After presenting the Pircha on the Limud from Bikurim, Rebbi Yossi does
not then attempt to learn from a 'Mah ha'Tzad' from Bechor and Bikurim
together (as one customarily does) - because he already knew that the 'Tzad
ha'Shaveh' itself was refutable, inasmuch as both Bechor and Bikurim require
the Mizbe'ach one way or the other (whereas Ma'aser does not).
(a) We question Rebbi Yossi, depending on whether the Kedushah of the first
Beis-Hamikdash ceased with the Churban or not. We ask that, if ...
1. ... it did not - why one should not be able to bring a Bechor nowadays
(based on the assumption that one can sacrifice nowadays, even though there
is no Beis-Hamikdash, as we learned in Megilah).
(b) Even if the Kedushah of the Beis-Hamikdash ceased with the Churban, we
nevertheless contend with the possibility of bringing a Bechor nowadays - in
a case where the animal was Shechted, its blood sprinkled and the Emurin
brought on the Mizbe'ach, already before the Churban.
2. ... it did - why we profess to know that one cannot bring a Bechor any
more than one cannot eat Ma'aser Sheini (which is only Safek).
(c) Ravina establishes Rebbi Yossi like the second side of the She'eilah,
and he takes for granted that one cannot bring a Bechor nowadays (under the
given circumstances) - because (presumably based on the Pasuk in Re'ei
12:27) we compare the flesh of the animal to its blood, which requires the
(a) The problem we have with then going on to learn Ma'aser Sheini from
Bechor with a Hekesh (as we explained earlier) is - the fact that in the
realm of Hekdesh, one cannot learn one Hekesh from another Hekesh.
(b) We deal with ...
1. ... the problem initially - by pointing out that Ma'aser is Chulin (and
in the realm of Chulin, one can learn a Hekesh from a Hekesh).
2. ... the problem even if, regarding 'Lameid min ha'Lameid' we go after the
Melamed (the source [Bechor]) which is Hekdesh - by concluding that the
blood and the flesh are considered one entity, and do not even require a
Hekesh to compare them.
(a) In spite of the fact that we already learned 'Ma'aser Sheini ve'Hekdesh
she'Lo Nifdu' in the previous Mishnah, the Tana's need to repeat 'Kodshim
Kalim u'Ma'aser Sheini Chutz le'Chomah', says Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina -
because whereas the former case speaks about where either the Ma'aser or the
person is Tamei and is eating it in Yerushalayim, whereas the latter case
speaks about where they are both Tahor and the person eats it outside
(b) Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa learns from the Lashon of the Pasuk 'Lo
Bi'arti Mimenu *be'Tamei*" - that one is forbidden to eat Ma'aser Sheini
be'Tum'ah irrespective of whether it is the man who is Tamei or the Ma'aser.
(c) From the Pasuk "Nefesh Asher Tiga Bo ve'Tam'ah ad ha'Erev, ve'Lo Yochal
min ha'Kodshim" - we learn the Azharah for eating Ma'aser Sheini when one is
(d) The problem with the Beraisa is - the source for not eating Ma'aser
which became Tamei (when the person is Tahor).
(a) The sad event that took place after Rashi had commented 'Ha Rachatz
Tahor, de'Taval ve'Alah Ochel be'Ma'aser' was - that Rashi died (as he was
(b) We ask 've'Heichan Muzhar al Achilaso', even though the Sifri itself
answers it - because we interjected before the Beraisa had been fully
(a) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael interprets the Pasuk (with regard to a Bechor
Ba'al Mum) "bi'She'arecha Tochlenu ha'Tamei ve'ha'Tahor" - to mean that even
a Tahor and a Tamei person are permitted to eat it from the same dish
(incorporating Tum'as ha'Guf and Tum'as Atzman [since the meat becomes Tamei
when touched by the Tamei person]).
(b) The Chidush is - that it is permitted to render a Bechor animal that has
been redeemed Tamei, despite the restrictions pertaining to it (that it may
not be shorn, its milk is forbidden and it may not be fed to dogs [since
this is not the result of any remaining Kedushah]).
(c) This reflects on the Pasuk there "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha
Ma'asar Degancha ... " - inasmuch as (based on the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'
"bi'She'arecha" "bi'She'arecha"), whatever is permitted by the former, is
prohibited by the latter (the Tana's source for the prohibition of Tum'as
Atzman by Ma'aser).
(a) One can generally redeem Ma'aser Sheini - if one is far from
Yerushalayim, and the load is too much to carry, as the Pasuk writes "Ki Lo
(b) We realize that it is also possible to redeem Ma'aser Sheini that became
Tamei even in Yerushalayim - because our Mishnah (which, as we just
established, is speaking about just such a case) says 'Ma'aser Sheini she'Lo
Nifdeh' (implying that if it were to be redeemed, one would be permitted to
(c) Based on the Pasuk "Vayisa Mas'os me'es Panav" (in connection with the
portions that Yosef gave his brothers), Rebbi Elazar extrapolates from the
Lashon "Se'eiso" that one can, because the Pasuk is now saying - that,
besides being able to redeem Ma'aser Sheini because it is too far, one may
also redeem it because one is unable to eat it (due to it being Tamei).
(d) We learn from the Pasuk there "Ki Yirchak Mimcha ha'Makom Venasata
ba'Kesef" - that one cannot redeem Ma'aser Sheini Tahor in Yerushalayim.
(a) Rebbi Bibi Amar Rebbi Asi also learns from the Pasuk "Ki Lo Suchal
Se'eiso" (in spite of the Pasuk "Ki Yirchak Mimcha ha'Makom") - that even if
one is just one step from Yerushalayim (and has difficulty in carrying the
Ma'aser Sheini into Yerushalayim, one may redeem it (even though one is not
far from Yerushalayim).
(b) We did indeed just use the very same Pasuk to teach us Rebbi Elazar's
D'rashah (that one can redeem Ma'aser Sheini that became Tamei, even in
Yerushalayim) - but then the Torah could have written "Ki Lo Suchal Achlo"
("Se'eiso" implies the current D'rashah).
(c) On the other hand, had the Pasuk just comes for the current D'rashah,
and not for that of Rebbi Elazar - it should have written "Ki Lo Suchal
Litlo" ("Se'eiso") implies both.
(a) Rav Chanina and Rav Hoshaya sat in the gateway of Yerushalayim and asked
a She'eilah. They first said that if someone was carrying his Ma'aser Sheini
in front of him, and it was already inside the city, but he was still
outside - the Ma'aser is considered inside (and he may no longer redeem it).
(b) Their She'eilah was - in a case where he was inside and the Ma'aser was
(c) When, to resolve the She'eilah, that old man from the Beis-Hamedrash of
Rebbi Shimon said "Ki Yirchak Mimcha" , 'mi'Milu'acha', he meant - that it
is only if all of the person (including the Ma'aser that he is carrying) is
outside, that he is still permitted to redeem the Ma'aser, but not if either
he or the Ma'aser is inside.
(d) Rav Papa asked what the Din would be if he was inside, and the Ma'aser,
which was hanging on a long pole that he held over his shoulder, was still
outside. This might be different than the previous case - because since the
Ma'aser itself is not actually on his shoulder, it might not be considered
'Milu'o', and he might still be able to redeem it as if it was lying on the
(e) The outcome of the She'eilah is 'Teiku'.
(a) Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan learns from the two Pesukim "Lifnei Hashem
Elokecha Tochlenu" and "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha" - that it is only
when the Ma'aser Sheini can be eaten (i.e. once it is inside Yerushalayim)
that one is Chayav for eating Ma'aser Sheini outside the walls.
(b) Consequently, when our Mishnah says 'Ma'aser Sheini Chutz le'Chomah', it
means - that he ate it after it had entered Yerushalayim and been taken out
(a) Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa says that a Kohen who has a fig of Tevel must
designate Terumah 'next to its stalk. The Mishnah in D'mai, which permits
designating Terumah without specifying its exact location - holds that it is
not necessary to specifically recognize the remaining Chulin, whereas Rebbi
Yossi holds that it is ('Shiyrehah Nikarin').
(b) He concludes there that if he also designates Ma'aser Rishon on the
north side and Ma'aser Sheini on the south side, assuming he is in
Yerushalayim, or Ma'aser Ani even assuming he is elsewhere, he nevertheless
receives Malkos. He could avoid that - by separating Terumas Ma'aser from
the Ma'aser Rishon.
(c) He does not receive Malkos for eating Terumah - because a Kohen is
permitted to do so.
(d) A Yisrael however - would be subject to two Malkos (one for eating
Terumah as well).
(a) Rebbi Yossi specifically referred to 'Ma'aser Sheini in Yerushalayim'.
Outside Yerushalayim - the Yisrael would receive three sets of Malkos (one
for eating Ma'aser Sheini Chutz le'Chomah).
(b) We reconcile this with Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan (who absolves a
person from Malkos for eating Ma'aser before the Ma'aser entered
Yerushalayim) - by establishing Rebbi Yossi when the Ma'aser entered
Yerushalayim and was taken out again (like we explained our Mishnah).
(c) In that case we ask, what is Rebbi Yossi's Chidush. And we reply 'K'gon
de'Aylinhu be'Tivlaihu', by which we mean that the Ma'aser itself was not
taken into Yerushalayim, only in the form of Tevel, and Rebbi Yossi is
coming to teach us the principle 'Matnos she'Lo Hurmu ke'Mi she'Hurmu
Damyan' (we consider the Matanos contained in Tevel, to be in existence as
if they had separated).