(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Nidah 51


QUESTION: The Gemara rules that if a person was Mafkir his field and harvested it early the next morning, the produce of the field is obligated in Matnos Aniyim but not in Ma'asros.

Hefker is normally exempt from both Matnos Aniyim and Ma'asros. Why then is this field *obligated* in Matnos Aniyim?


(a) RASHI (DH Ta Shma; see also Rashi Temurah 6a DH Chayav) explains that only "fully Hefker" produce is exempt from Matnos Aniyim. This field is not fully Hefker and is thus still obligated in Matnos Aniyim. In what way does Rashi mean that the field only "partially" Hefker?

Perhaps it is not fully Hefker since it was not made Hefker in front of three people (as required by the Gemara in Nedarim 45b). Since it was not made Hefker in a public manner, there is circumstantial evidence that it is only a half-hearted Hefker. (Besides, the fact that the owner harvested the fruits early the next morning certainly leads us to conclude that he did not really want it to be Hefker.) (M. Kornfeld)

(b) TOSFOS (Bava Kama 28a DH Zeh and Temurah 6a DH ha'Mafkir) explains that a field is only exempt from Matnos Aniyim if it is *presently* Hefker. The fact that a field was once Hefker does not remove from it the obligation of Matnos Aniyim. The obligation of separating Ma'aser from a field, on the other hand, depends upon whether the field was *once* Hefker. Therefore, a field that was Hefker last night is exempt from Ma'aser. Thus, according to Rashi the Beraisa is discussing a person who was Mafkir the fruits of his field and did *not* reclaim them before they were harvested. According to Tosfos, on the other hand, the Beraisa is discussing a person who was Mafkir the field and *did* reclaim it before picking the fruit the following morning.



OPINIONS: We are taught that once a particular fruit is no longer to be found in the fields, there is an obligation to do Bi'ur for what remains of that fruit in people's homes. What constitutes "Bi'ur"?

(a) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Shemitah v'Yovel 7:3) rules that the Mitzvah of Bi'ur is to be rid of all that remains of the fruit after a certain date. This may be done by eating them or by destroying them before that date.

(b) The RA'AVAD (ad.loc.) disagrees. He explains that there are two parts to Bi'ur: (1) When there are none of these particular fruits left in a particular *region*, the Mitzvah of Bi'ur is to be *Mafkir* what remains of those fruits in one's possession. (2) When there are none of a particular species left in the entire *Eretz Yisroel*, the fruits must be *destroyed*.

(c) The RAMBAN (Vayikra 25:7) and the RASH (Shevi'is 9:8) rule that the obligation of Bi'ur is simply to be Mafkir the fruits by declaring them Hefker in the presence of three people. (The Yerushalmi adds that they may be made Hefker in the market place even if no one is presently there.)

HALACHAH: The CHAZON ISH rules that today we may be lenient and conduct ourselves according to the RASH, since Shevi'is is only mid'Rabanan today.


OPINIONS: The Mishnah mentions that in Ma'arava, the Jews would recite a Berachah after the performance of Mitzvos, such as when they removed their Tefillin at the end of the day. After which Mitzvos was a Berachah recited in Ma'arava?

(a) RABBEINU TAM (quoted by TOSFOS DH vli'Vnei) explains that in Ma'arava they only made a Berachah when they removed their Tefillin before nightfall, since the verse, "v'Shamartah Es *ha'Chukah*" forbids wearing them at night. They did not recite a Berachah after they completed any other Mitzvah or after removing their Tefillin in the morning, since the Torah does not call such acts "Chukah."

If they did not recite a Berachah after any other Mitzvah, why did the Gemara conclude that the ruling of the Mishnah (that a Berachah Rishonah is sometimes recited without a Berachah Acharonah) was made with regard to scents? We could have simply explained that it is referring to all other Mitzvos besides Tefillin? RABBEINU TAM answers that the Gemara could have in fact explained that the Mishnah was referring to other Mitzvos.

(b)The RASHBA and RITVA reject RABBEINU TAM's ruling. They explain that in Ma'arava they made Berachos after all Mitzvos whose obligations come to an end (either because the Mitzvah has been completed, such as with Lulav or Shofar, or because the obligation ceases to apply, such as Tefillin or Tzitzis at night).

The ROKEACH explains that they recited the Berachah of *Lishmor Chukav* after they completed a Mitzvah based on the verse, "u'Shamartem Es Chukosai" (Vayikra 18:5).

(c) The Ritva also explains that in Ma'arava a Berachah was recited after every Mitzvah, but he asserts that only after they removed their Tefillin did they recite Lishmor *Chukav*, based on the verse "v'Shamartem Es ha'*Chukah*. After they completed other Mitzvos they recited Lishmor *Mitzvosav*.

HALACHAH: The TUR (Orach Chayim 29) quotes RAV HAI GOAN who rules that a person may recite a Berachah when he removes his Tefillin at the end of the day. The TUR disagrees. He rules that since there is no obligation to recite such a Berachah, it will be a Berachah l'Vatalah if recited.

Next daf


This article is provided as part of Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Permission is granted to redistribute electronically or on paper,
provided that this notice is included intact.
For information on subscriptions, archives, and other Shema Yisrael
Classes, send mail to daf@shemayisrael.co.il

Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Jerusalem, Israel

In the U.S.:
Tel. (908) 370-3344
Fax. (908) 367-6608

Toll free line for dedications: 1-800-574-2646