(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

Menachos 82



(a) Rebbi Ami rules that if someone designates Ma'aser-Sheini money to purchase Shelamim - the money does not adopt the Kedushah of Shelamim (and he may use it to buy other things).

(b) This is - because the Kedushas Shelamim cannot override that of Ma'aser-Sheini.

(c) Indeed we just learned that one is permitted to buy a Shelamim with Ma'aser-Sheini money - because that entails transferring the Kedushah from the former on to the latter; but designating one Kedushah on to another is something else.

(a) S'tam ...
1. ... Chayos that one purchases with Ma'aser-Sheini money - are generally eaten as Basar Chulin, whereas
2. ... Beheimos - are brought as Shelamim.
(b) Their skins - go out to Chulin.

(c) The Mishnah in Ma'aser-Sheini states that in a case where one purchased a Chayah as a Shelamim or a Beheimah to eat as Chulin - the skins do not go out to Chulin (see Rabeinu Gershom).

(a) Initially, we interpret the Din of the skin - to mean that S'tam it adopts Kedushas Shelamim (to purchase with it a Shelamim animal), from which it appears that the Kedushah of Shelamim does take effect on Ma'aser (a Kashya on Rebbi Ami).

(b) We answer the Kashya by citing Rav, who explained the Mishnah's ruling 'Lo Yeitzei ha'Or le'Chulin' to mean - that it is not subject to going out to Chulin, because it is not Kodesh to begin with.

(c) Rabah explains that this is because it is as if he had purchased an ox specifically for plowing, by which he means - that we treat the skin as if the owner specifically stipulated that it should be Chulin (like the Basar), and not like the Din of 'S'tam'.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Rebbi Ami. According him, if someone designates Ma'aser-Sheini money to purchase Shelamim, the money adopts the sanctity of Shelamim. Rebbi Elazar holds - 'Lo Kani', like Rebbi Ami.

(b) We establish their Machlokes according to Rebbi Meir, who holds 'Ma'aser Mamon Gavohah. Rebbi Yehudah holds - 'Ma'aser Mamon Hedyot'. Consequently, the money may be used to betroth a woman (whereas Rebbi Meir forbids it).

(c) Rebbi Elazar will agree that, according to him, the money acquires the Kedushah of Shelamim - because there is no reason why the Kedushah of Shelamim should not take effect on money which is Chulin.

(d) Even though Rebbi Yochanan holds like Rebbi Meir, the Ma'aser money adopts the Kedushah of Shelamim - because, to an extent, Ma'aser-Sheini money already incorporates Kedushas Shelamim, inasmuch as an animal that one buys with it S'tam is brought as a Shelamim.

(a) The Beraisa rules that someone who redeems Ma'aser money that he designated as a Shelamim - must add two fifths, one because of the Kedushas Shelamim), and one because it is Ma'aser ...

(b) ... a Kashya on Rebbi Elazar ...

(c) ... who answers by establishing the author of the Beraisa as Rebbi Yehudah.

(a) The problem with the Pasuk "Ve'zavachta Pesach la'Hashem Elokecha Tzon u'Vakar" is - that the Korban Pesach comprises either a sheep or a goat, but not a calf.

(b) Our Mishnah therefore - interprets the Pasuk as a 'Hekesh', comparing all obligatory Korbanos to the Korban Pesach, which certainly comes from Chulin money.

(c) And when the Tana says 'Davar she'be'Chovah' - he incorporates Korbanos which a person obligates himself to bring (by declaring 'Harei Alai' [Nedarim]). Someone who declares 'Harei Zu Shelamim' or 'Harei Zu le'Todah' (which is a Nedavah) will take effect even on Ma'aser-Sheini money.

(d) The exception to this latter ruling is Nesachim - which may only be purchased with Chulin money and not with Ma'aser, even in the form of a Nedavah (and which one is obligated to bring even if one declared 'Harei Alai Zevach', without mentioning the Nesachim).

(a) Rebbi Eliezer, in a Beraisa, cites the source for the above Din of Pesach as Pesach Mitzrayim, which he knows was brought from Chulin - because Ma'aser Sheini did not yet exist.

(b) Rebbi Akiva objected to this however - due to the principle 'Ein Danin Efshar mi'she'I Efshar' (one cannot learn something that is possible from something that is not).

(c) Rebbi Eliezer's response to that was - to simply reject the principle.

(a) Rebbi Akiva persisted however, and further queried Rebbi Eliezer, based on the fact that there was no Mizbe'ach in Mitzrayim (only the two door-posts and the lintel) - in which case there was no Matan Damim ve'Eimurin (in which case, Pesach Doros, where there was, might also need to be brought from Chulin).

(b) Rebbi Eliezer replied - by citing the Pasuk "Va'avadta es ha'Avodah ha'Zos *ba'Chodesh ha'Zeh*" - comparing all Avodos of the month of Nisan (of subsequent years) to Pesach Mitzrayim.




(a) From the fact that Rebbi Akiva asked the Pircha on Rebbi Eliezer from 'Matan Damim ve'Eimurim', it appears that he retracted from the S'vara of 'Ein Danin Efshar mi'she'I Efshar'. We can ask on him however, from Pesach Midbar - which could not be brought from Ma'aser (which had not yet been introduced), even though it required Matan Damim ve'Eimurim on the Mizbe'ach. Consequently, if Rebbi Akiva no longer holds 'Ein Danin ... ', he could nevertheless learn Pesach Doros from Pesach Midbar.

(b) So we conclude - that he did not really retract at all, and his second Pircha was simply intended to refute Rebbi Eliezer (who holds 'Danin Efshar mi'shi'I Efshar' [even though he does not]).

(c) By the same token, Rebbi Eliezer (who could have answered Rebbi Akiva from Pesach Midbar [as we just explained]) needed to come on to the Pasuk "Va'avadta" - to refute Rebbi Akiva, who holds 'Ein Danin ... '.

(a) The reason Rav Sheishes gives to explain why Rebbi Akiva did not still ask on the Hekesh 've'Chi Danin Efshar mi'she'I Efshar' is - because of the principle 'Ein Mashivin al ha'Hekesh' (that one cannot query a Hekesh).

(b) One can ask a Pircha on a 'Kal va'Chomer', but not on a 'Hekesh' or 'Gezeirah-Shavah' - because whereas one can Darshen the former from one's own logic, the latter is 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai' (see Seifer 'Eizehu Mekoman').

(a) In 'Tarbitza', they queried how one can possibly learn the Din of 'Ba min ha'Chulin' by Todah from Pesach Doros. 'Tarbitza' means - the Beis-Hamedrash ('she'Marbitzin bah Torah [where they spread Torah]').

(b) The problem with learning Todah from Pesach Doros with a Hekesh is - that we learned Pesach Doros from Pesach Mitzrayim (or from Pesach Midbar) with a Hekesh, and we have a principle - 'Ein Lemeidin Hekesh min ha'Hekesh be'Kodshim'.

(c) And we answer that this case is different than a regular case of 'Hekesh min ha'Hekesh' - because, seeing as the first Hekesh learns Pesach from Pesach, the second Hekesh is considered as if we were learning Todah from Pesach S'tam.

(a) We cite Shmuel in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, who quotes the Pasuk in "Zos ha'Torah, la'Olah, ve'la'Minchah, ve'la'Chatas ve'le'Asham ve'la'Milu'im u'le'Zevach ha'Shelamim". We cite Shmuel - because we are searching for a source that Pesachim must come from Chulin according to Rebbi Akiva (see Tosfos DH 've'Hashta Nami', and Seifer 'Eizehu Mekoman').

(b) From "Olah", Rebbi Eliezer learns that all Korbanos require a K'li, just like Olah. We suggest that perhaps this refers to bowls for Kabalas ha'Dam - which the Torah mentions in Mishpatim in connection with the Korbanos that they sacrificed prior to Matan Torah.

(c) We refute this suggestion however - on the grounds that this Pasuk also refers to the Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur that were brought there (so how do we know to learn the Din of K'li by other Korbanos from Olah and not from Shelamim).

(d) So the 'K'li' of Rebbi Eliezer must therefore be referring to - a Shechitah knife, which we find by the Akeidah (in Vayeira), and which was an Olah, as the Torah explicitly states there.

Next daf


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