THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
1) THE SOURCE THAT "NESACHIM" MUST BE BROUGHT FROM "CHULIN"
OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that all obligatory Korbanos must be brought
only from Chulin. A free-will Korban, or Nedavah, may be brought from
Ma'aser. The Mishnah adds that this does not apply to Nesachim. All forms of
Nesachim must be brought from Chulin, even when the Korban that the Nesachim
accompanies is a Nedavah. RASHI (Kesav Yad, DH b'Chol Makom), the BARTENURA,
and others explain that this applies even when one specifically pledged to
bring a Korban and its Nesachim from Ma'aser.
Why must Nesachim be brought only from Chulin?
(a) RASHI (ibid.) and TOSFOS (DH u'Nesachim) explain that only Korbanos that
are partially eaten may be brought from Ma'aser. Tosfos explains that the
source for this is the Sifri (that he quotes earlier in DH Eino b'Toras
Shelamim). The Sifri says that one may not buy a Korban Olah with money of
Ma'aser, because the verse regarding Ma'aser Sheni says, "And you may spend
the money for anything that your soul desires... and you shall eat there
before Hashem, your G-d, and you shall rejoice" (Devarim 14:26), which
implies that one may use money of Ma'aser Sheni only to buy food that gives
Simchah to a person ("Achilah she'Yesh Bah Simchah"). Tosfos explains that
just as the Sifri excludes buying an Olah with money of Ma'aser, it also
excludes bringing Nesachim from Ma'aser.
(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 16:17) writes that the source to
bring Nesachim only from Chulin is the verse, "The one who is bringing a
Korban shall bring his Korban to Hashem" (Bamidbar 15:4). The Rambam
explains that the verse (which is discussing Nesachim) implies that the
Nesachim must come entirely from the monies of the one bringing the Korban,
and they may not have any connection in any way to monies that are Kadosh.
According to Tosfos, the reason why Nesachim must be brought from Chulin is
because of the Halachah written with regard to Ma'aser Sheni that says that
Ma'aser Sheni may not be used for Nesachim. According to the Rambam, it is a
Halachah in the laws of Korbanos that says that Nesachim may not be brought
from Ma'aser Sheni.
Why does the Rambam not give the source that is given in the Sifri? Why does
he find it necessary to make up his own Derashah in order to explain the law
of the Mishnah?
The CHAZON YECHEZKEL (8:14) explains that it must be that the Rambam
maintains that money of Ma'aser Sheni technically may be used for Nesachim,
if not for the verse written with regard to Korbanos. Why does the Rambam
not learn from the verse cited by the Sifri that just as one may not buy an
Olah with money of Ma'aser, one also may not bring Nesachim from Ma'aser? He
answers that the Rambam understands that the Sifri specifically excludes
bringing an Olah from Ma'aser, and not Nesachim, because no part of a Korban
Olah is eaten, and, therefore, an Olah is not an "Achilah she'Yesh Bo
Simchah" (as described above). While Nesachim, too, are not consumed at all,
they are considered subordinate to the Korban with which they are brought
and do not have their own identity. Since the Korban with which they are
brought may sometimes be eaten (such as a Korban Todah or Korban Shelamim),
Nesachim in general are considered to be an "Achilah she'Yesh Bo Simchah."
The Rambam understands that this difference between an Olah and Nesachim
makes the Derashah of the Sifri an insufficient source to teach that all
Nesachim must be brought only from Chulin. (Y. Montrose)
2) WHY ONE CANNOT REFUTE A "HEKESH"
OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses an argument between Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi
Eliezer regarding the source of the Mishnah's statement that a Korban Pesach
must be brought only from Chulin. Rebbi Eliezer compared the Korban Pesach
that is brought throughout the generations with the original Korban Pesach
that was brought in Mitzrayim. Just as the Korban Pesach brought in
Mitzrayim was brought from Chulin and not from Ma'aser, so, too, every
Korban Pesach for generations must be brought from Chulin.
Rebbi Akiva questioned Rebbi Eliezer's logic. "Can we judge a case that is
possible (bringing the Korban Pesach of generations from Ma'aser) from a
case that is not possible (bringing the Korban Pesach of Mitzrayim from
Ma'aser)?" The Korban Pesach in Mitzrayim was brought from Chulin, because
there was no such thing as Ma'aser yet! How, then, can we learn from there
that the Korban Pesach can never be brought from Ma'aser?
Rebbi Eliezer, however, asserted that his proof is valid. Rebbi Akiva asked
a different question. The Korban Pesach in Mitzrayim did not require that
its blood be sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach, nor its limbs offered on the
Mizbe'ach (since there was no Mizbe'ach), while the Korban Pesach of
generations does require these Avodos. Since the Korban Pesach of
generations is more similar to a Shelamim (which also requires Zerikah and
Haktaras Eimurin), we should say that it is allowed to be brought from
Ma'aser just like Shelamim.
Rebbi Eliezer answered that the verse says, "You shall perform this Avodah
in this month" (Shemos 13:5), which implies that the Avodah of the Korban
Pesach that one does for generations should be similar to the Korban Pesach
of Mitzrayim. Just as the Korban Pesach in Mitzrayim was brought from
Chulin, so, too, the Korban Pesach of generations should be brought from
The Gemara later asks why Rebbi Akiva did not question this teaching the
same way he questioned Rebbi Eliezer's first teaching, "Can we judge a case
that is possible (bringing the Korban Pesach of generations from Ma'aser)
from a case that is not possible (bringing the Korban Pesach of Mitzrayim
from Ma'aser)?" The Gemara answers with a general principle, "Ein Meshivin
Al ha'Hekesh" -- we cannot refute a Hekesh.
What is the reason why a Hekesh cannot be refuted? (See end of Insights to
(a) RASHI (DH Zos Omeres) and RABEINU GERSHOM explain that the reason a
Hekesh is irrefutable is because one may not formulate a Hekesh on one's own
accord. Rather, a Hekesh must be received through tradition from one's
teacher, who received it from his teacher, and so on back to Moshe Rabeinu
at Sinai. Since a Hekesh comes from Sinai, it is irrefutable. This is also
the explanation of Rashi in Sukah (31a, DH Lo Makshinan) and in Sanhedrin
(73a, DH Hekeisha).
(b) However, Rashi in Rosh Hashanah (34a, DH Hachi ka'Amar) implies that one
*may* formulate a Hekesh on his own. This is also apparent from Rashi in
Gitin (41b, DH d'Chulei Alma). The Gemara there discusses which is more
powerful, a Hekesh or a Gezeirah Shavah. Rashi explains that when the Gemara
says that everyone agrees that a Gezeirah Shavah is more powerful because it
cannot be refuted, this is "because it is taught from Sinai, for a person
cannot teach a Gezeirah Shavah by himself, and thus it is stronger than a
Hekesh." We find that this is also the view of the RITVA in Rosh Hashanah
(34a) and TOSFOS in Sukah (31a, DH v'Rebbi Yehudah Savar), who writes that
all of the thirteen Midos she'ha'Torah Nidreshes ba'Hen (the thirteen
exegetical principles of expounding Torah law) may be utilized without an
oral tradition from Sinai, except for a Gezeirah Shavah. (See Insights to
Rosh Hashanah 34:1.)
According to this opinion, why is a Hekesh irrefutable? The HALICHOS OLAM
(4:2) explains that a Hekesh is tantamount to a law written explicitly in
the Torah, and therefore it cannot be refuted.
How, though, are we to understand the apparent contradiction in the words of
1. The MISHNEH L'MELECH (Hilchos Korban Pesach 2:13) suggests in his first
answer that Rashi in fact maintains that one may formulate a Hekesh by
himself. The Gemara in Sukah is expressing only the view of Rebbi Yehudah.
However, the IGROS MOSHE (OC 1:16) points out that this explanation is very
difficult, because Rashi here and Rashi in Sanhedrin also state that one may
not teach a Hekesh on his own accord.
2. The Mishneh l'Melech suggests a second explanation. Rashi indeed
maintains that one may not formulate a Hekesh on his own. When Rashi in
Gitin writes that a Gezeirah Shavah is stronger than a Hekesh because it is
taught from Sinai, he means that a Gezeirah Shavah is *also* from Sinai and
cannot be formulated on one's own accord.
How, though, are we to understand the words of Rashi in Rosh Hashanah? The
Igros Moshe (ibid.) answers that when Rashi mentions in Rosh Hashanah that a
Hekesh may be taught on one's own, he is not referring to the type of Hekesh
transmitted from Sinai which is irrefutable. Rather, he is referring to a
Hekesh that one makes on his own. Such a Hekesh does not carry the same
weight as a Hekesh from Har Sinai. (See also ARUCH LA'NER to Sukah 31a). (Y.