(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

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).
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).
(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.

(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 Mizbe'ach.

(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 Yerushalayim.

(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 Tamei.

(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 discussing Taharah).

(b) We ask 've'Heichan Muzhar al Achilaso', even though the Sifri itself answers it - because we interjected before the Beraisa had been fully quoted.

(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 Suchal Se'eiso"?

(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 eat it).

(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 outside.

(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 ground.

(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 again.

(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).

Next daf


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