(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

Pesachim 38



(a) In Rav Asi's opinion, according to Rebbi Meir, the Mitzvah of Chalah, Matzos on Pesach and an Esrog on Succos all have in common - the fact that they are not applicable by Ma'aser Sheni: Chalah of Ma'aser Sheni is Patur from Chalah, one is not Yotze with Matzah of Ma'aser Sheni and one will not be Yotze with an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni.

(b) Rebbi Meir's source for ...

1. ... Chalah - is the Pasuk in Sh'lach-Lecha "Arisochem", implying that the dough must be one's personal property, and not belong to Hekdesh (which Ma'aser Sheni does, according to Rebbi Meir, who holds 'Ma'aser Sheni Mamon Gavo'ah Hu'.
2. ... an Esrog - is the Pasuk in Emor "u'Lekachtem *Lachem*", with the same implication as that of Chalah.
3. ... Matzah - from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Lechem" "Lechem" from Chalah.
(c) According to the Rabbanan - Ma'aser Sheni is Mamon Hedyot (one's personal property, so all the previous Derashos do not apply.

(d) The Beraisa, which cites the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan with regard to Chalah, may hold that, of the three, it is only *Chalah* that, in Rebbi Meir's opinion, does not apply by Ma'aser Sheni - because he Darshens from the superfluous "Arisosechem" (which is written twice) but not by the other two. From the word "Lachem" - we might otherwise preclude a borrowed or a stolen Esrog. Nor do we know that the Tana of the Beraisa learns the 'Gezeirah Shavah' "Lechem" "Lechem" (Rabeinu Chananel).

(a) Even though one is Yotze with Matzah of Ma'aser Sheni which is Chulin (i.e. not Chalah) - that is only because it *has* a potential Heter of 'be'Chol Moshvos' (should it become Tamei, as we learnt above - on 36b - according to Rebbi Elazar); one will not perhaps be Yotze with Matzah of Chalah of Ma'aser Sheni, which does *not* (since once Chalah becomes Tamei it may not be eaten).

(b) On the other hand, perhaps one *will* - because (bearing in mind that Chalah does not negate the status of Matzah - as we learnt in our Mishnah 35a) should it become Tamei, we will say 'Ho'il ve'Ilu Lo Kara Lah Shem', since, if he had not declared it Chalah, he would have been able to redeem it and eat it.

(a) The Sha'aleh by Chalah that was taken from grain that was purchased with Ma'aser-Sheni money - is that now, we need to come on to, not *one* 'Ho'il', but two. Why is that? Because *any* fruit that is purchased with Ma'aser Sheni money which became Tamei, cannot be redeemed and must be buried. So we will have to say 'Ho'il' - had he not transferred the original Ma'aser into money, and now into the grain from which he separated Chalah, it would have had a Heter be'Chol Moshvos. In addition, had he not declared the dough Chalah, it would have had a Heter be'Chol Moshvos. The Sha'aleh is whether we say two Ho'ils.

(b) This Sha'aleh does not even begin according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehudah - who hold that fruit that is purchased with Ma'aser Sheni money which became Tamei, *can* be redeemed. Consequently, it has exactly the same Heter Moshvos as the Ma'aser Sheni fruit itself.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah rules that produce bought with Ma'aser-Sheni money which became Tamei cannot be redeemed and must be buried - because its Kedushah is diminished and is therefore not subject to redemption.

(a) Chalas-Ma'aser Tehorah is not considered a case of *two* Ho'ils ('Ho'il ve'Lo Kara Aleha Shem' & 'Ho'il ve'I Mitamei, Parik Lah') - because any Ho'il which lies within one's power to put into practice, is not considered Ho'il in this regard (and in this case, he can be Metamei the Chalah and redeem it).

(b) The Gemara concludes that, since the Chalah stemmed from Ma'aser, and, as we stated earlier, Chalah per se, does not detract from the status of Matzah, we give the Chalah the same Din as the Ma'aser from which it stemmed, and a Kohen can be Yotze Matzah with it.




(a) Rabah learns from the Pasuk "u'Shemartem es ha'Matzos" - that one can only be Yotze with Matzos that were guarded for the Mitzvah of Matzah, to preclude Matzos which were guarded for a Korban, and not for the Mitzvah of Matzah.

(b) Rav Yosef learns from "Shiv'as Yamim Matzos Tochelu" - that Matzos for Pesach must be guarded to be eaten for seven days; whereas the Matzos for a Todah can only be eaten for one day.

(c) The practical difference between the two explanations lies when one guarded the Matzos both for a Korban Todah and to eat on Pesach: according to Rabah he will be Yotze, whereas according to Rav Yosef (who requires Matzah for seven days) he will not.

(a) An Onan is not permitted to eat Kodshim, Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser, where the Torah writes "Lo Achalti ve'Oni Mimenah".

(b) Those who need a new Pasuk to teach us that one cannot be Yotze with Chalos Todah u'Rekikei Nazir, rather than from the Pasuk "Lechem Oni", ('Mi she'Ne'echal ba'Aninus, Yatza Zeh she'Eino Ne'echal ba'Aninus Ela be'Simchah') - hold like Rebbi Akiva, who Darshens 'Lechem Ani' and not 'Lechem Oni', and who therefore permits Matzah of Ma'aser Sheni.

(c) The Todah only contained a very small quantity of oil (a quarter Lug for twenty loaves), not sufficient to render the bread Matzah Ashirah.

(a) The Chalos Todah and Rekikei Nazir are not disqualified from the Pasuk "be'*Chol Moshvoseichem* Tochlu Matzos" - because they were also brought on the Bamah in Nov and Giv'on, when they could be eaten anywhere in Eretz Yisrael.

(b) They could bring on the Bamah Gedolah in Nov and Giv'on ...

1. ... according to Rebbi Shimon - only obligatory Korbanos that had a fixed time (e.g. the Korban Tamid and the Korban Musaf).
2. ... according to the Tana in the last Perek of Zevachim - as far as Korbanos Yachid were concerned, only Shelamim and Olos.
8) Chalos Todah and Rekikei Nazir which one made for oneself - one tended to designate unconditionally to use for one's Korban, in which case, they were Pasul, since they were not guarded according to the Torah's specification (as we learnt at the beginning of the Amud). Those that he made to sell in the market, on the other hand, he had in mind initially to use on Pesach should he not find purchasers. In that case, he guarded the Matzos with two specific intentions, one of them for Matzah that was eaten for seven days (See foot of 8a., where the Gemara endorses something that is done with two specific intentions).

Next daf


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