ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 54
BAVA METZIA 51-55 - Mrs. Estanne Abraham-Fawer has dedicated two weeks of
Dafyomi study material to honor the second Yahrzeit of her father, Reb
Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Weiner, who passed away 18 Teves 5761). May the
merit of supporting and advancing the study of the Talmud be l'Iluy
(a) Tana'im actually argue over whether 'Chomesh' means mi'Legav or
mi'Lebar. Rebbi Yoshiyah says "ve'Yasaf Chamishiso Alav", 'she'Yehei Hu
ve'Chomsho Chamishah'. The value of the object that is being redeemed is -
four Shekalim, and Rebbi Yoshiyah holds 'Chomesh mi'Lebar'.
(b) The Tana who requires only a fifth of the Keren is - Rebbi Yonasan.
(a) We ask whether the fifth is Me'akev. The basis of the She'eilah is -
whether the fifth is a separate obligation (the amount plus a fifth), or
part of the payment (five Zuz for Ma'aser worth four).
(b) And its ramifications are - whether the owner is permitted to eat his
redeemed Ma'aser outside Yerushalayim, before he has paid the Chomesh.
(c) The Beraisa states that there is no Chomesh and no Biy'ur by D'mai. The
implications of the latter Halachah are - that the owner does not need
include the Chomesh of Ma'aser Sheini in his declaration of Biy'ur Ma'asros
at the end of the third and the sixth years.
(d) We infer from here that the Din of Keren of Ma'aser Sheini does apply -
because it is Me'akev by Vaday, whereas the Chomesh is not.
(a) Rebbi Eliezer permits someone who has paid the Keren of Ma'aser but not
the Chomesh, to eat it. Rebbi Yehoshua - forbids it.
(b) Rebbi rules like Rebbi Eliezer on Shabbos - because of Kavod Shabbos,
but like Rebbi Yehoshua on weekdays.
(c) We know that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua argue ...
1. ... on Shabbos - because Rebbi said 'Nir'in Divrei Rebbi Yehoshua
(d) Initially, we attempt to establish the Machlokes - as to whether Chomesh
is Me'akev (Rebbi Yehoshua) or not (Rebbi Eliezer).
2. ... on weekdays - because he said 'Nir'in Divrei Rebbi Eliezer
(a) But Rav Papa concludes that both Tana'im hold 'Chomesh Eino Me'akev',
and nevertheless, Rebbi Yehoshua forbids him to eat the Ma'aser before he
has paid the Chomesh - because of a decree in case he forgets to pay it.
(b) Rebbi Eliezer - is not worried that he will forget.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan claims that Rebbi Yehoshua concedes that he is permitted
to eat *Hekdesh*, even though he has not yet paid the Chomesh - based on the
fact the treasurers of Hekdesh will claim it from him (so he cannot forget
to pay it).
(d) We refute this statement however, on the basis of another Beraisa, where
Rebbi says 'Nir'in Divrei Rebbi Eliezer be'Hekdesh, ve'Divrei Rebbi Yehoshua
be'Ma'aser'. Clearly then, Rebbi Yochanan's ruling may well be the opinion
of Rebbi, but Rebbi Yehoshua still argues with Rebbi Eliezer over it.
(a) We therefore conclude that what Rebbi Yochanan really said was that they
both agree regarding Hekdesh, but only on Shabbos - because a. the
treasurers will claim Hekdesh's debt from him, and b. because the Pasuk in
Yeshayah writes "ve'Karasa la'Shabbos Oneg" (turning eating on a Shabbos
into a Mitzvah).
(b) We learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "ve'Yasaf Chamishis *Kesef* Erk'cha Alav" - that one cannot redeem
Hekdesh with Karka.
(c) Rami bar Chama asks - whether all these restrictions apply to the
accompanying Chomesh too.
2. ... "ve'Nasan la'Kohen es *ha'Kodesh*" - that a Zar who eats Terumah
be'Shogeg must pay the Kohen with food that is fit to be 'Kodesh' (i.e.
3. ... "*ve'Tzarta* ha'Kesef be'Yadcha" - that one can only redeem Ma'aser
Sheini with a minted coin.
(d) When the She'eilah came before Rava, he resolved all three She'eilos
with one swoop - by citing the word "Alav" which the Torah writes together
with each Chomesh, to teach us that the Chomesh has basically the same Din
as the Keren.
(a) Ravina supports Rava's ruling from a Beraisa. The Beraisa rules that
someone who steals Terumah but does not eat it, must pay double 'D'mei
Terumah' - meaning that he returns the Keren, and pays the Kefel in cash but
at the cheap price that a Kohen would pay someone who was selling it (since
it is only fit for Kohanim to eat when they are Tahor).
(b) Should he then eat it, he is obligated to pay two times the Keren (one
for what he ate and one for the outstanding Kefel) plus a Chomesh for eating
(c) He pays ...
1. ... the Keren and its Chomesh for eating it - in kind (Chulin that is fit
to become Terumah, as we explained earlier).
(d) Ravina proves from here - that the Chomesh has the same Din as the
Keren, corroborating Rava's ruling.
2. ... the 'Keren' for stealing it - in cash at a cheap price, as we just
(a) The Torah writes in Vayikra (in connection with someone who stole,
denied and swore that he did not steal "va'Chamishisav Yosef Alav". The
Mishnah in Bava Kama extrapolates from the fact that "va'Chamishisav" is
written in the plural - that if the Ganav subsequently designated the
Chomesh and then swore again, then, besides the Chomesh on the Keren, he
also has to pay a Chomesh on that Chomesh.
(b) He no longer pays a Chomesh on the Chomesh - from the moment the Chomesh
on which he swears is worth less than a P'rutah.
(c) The Mishnah in T'rumos states that a Zar who designated Chulin plus a
Chomesh as payment for Terumah that he ate be'Shogeg - also has to pay a
Chomesh on that Chomesh, should he eat it after designating it, even though
the Torah there writes "*va'Chamishiso*" (and not 'Chamishisav').
(d) This Halachah ...
1. ... extends to drinking T'rumah wine - because 'Achilah' incorporates
2. ... and to anointing oneself with T'rumah oil - because of the principle
'Sichah ki'Shesiyah' (anointing is akin to drinking).
3. ... does not extend to burning T'rumah, only to the previous cases.
4. ... extends to eating Tamei T'rumah, as well as to Tahor Terumah.
(a) Rava observes that in connection with Ma'aser Sheini, where the Torah
also writes "va'Chamishiso Yosef Alav" (and not 'Chamishisav'), there is no
Mishnah which obligates one to pay a Chomesh on a Chomesh, nor does anyone
ask whether one perhaps should - because it is obvious that one does not.
(b) The difference between Terumah, where there is a Din of Chomesh al
Chomesh, and Ma'aser, where there is not, despite the fact that in both
cases, the Torah uses the singular - lies in the 'Vav' in "ve'Yasaf" which
the Torah writes by T'rumah, implying that one adds and adds again (like
Chazal Darshen in Toldos, on the Pasuk "ve'Yiten Lecha" [see Rashi there];
whereas by T'rumah it only writes "Yosef".
(c) On the other hand, the Mishnah teaches us that T'rumah pays a Chomesh on
a Chomesh, but does not say this about Hekdesh.
(d) Considering that in both cases, the Torah uses the Lashon "ve'Yasaf",
the Din of a Chomesh on a Chomesh ...
1. ... might not apply to Hekdesh, even though it does apply to T'rumah -
because (based on the principle 'Gor'in u'Mosifin ve'Dorshin') perhaps the
reason by Terumah is (not as we explained, but) because we add the extra
"Vav" to "va'Chamishiso", which then reads "va'Chamishisav", which we cannot
do by Hekdesh, where the Torah writes (not "Chamishiso", but) "Chamishis".
2. ... apply nonetheless - because maybe the D'rashah is due to the extra
'Vav' alone, which implies to add again (as we explained earlier).
(a) We cannot resolve the problem (that the Torah writes "Chamishis" by
Hekdesh, and not "Chamishiso") by adding the 'Vav' in the middle of the word
to read "Chamishiyos" - because we never find 'Gor'in u'Mosifin ve'Dorshin'
in the middle of the word, only at the very beginning or at the very end.
(b) We ask why we cannot resolve the She'eilah regarding Hekdesh from Rebbi
Yehoshua ben Levi, who says - that one does not add a Chomesh to Hekdesh
Sheini (as will be explained shortly). Note, that Hekdesh Sheini refers to a
Hekdesh animal that became blemished and the owner transferred its Kedushah
on to another animal.
(c) Rav Papi answered Ravina from Rava, who defines the Chomesh as Hekdesh
Rishon - because it comes automatically (nobody declared it Hekdesh in place
of Hekdesh Rishon).
(d) We finally resolve the She'eilah from Rav Tivyumi in the name of Abaye,
who Darshened from the Pasuk "ve'Yasaf Chamishis Erk'cha Alav" - that the
Chomesh is subject to a Chomesh, just like the money of one's Erech is.
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi learns from the Pasuk "ve'Im ha'Makdish Yig'al
es Beiso, ve'Yasaf Chamishis Erk'cha Alav" - that only Hekdesh Rishon is
subject to a Chomesh, but not Hekdesh Sheini.
(b) A Beraisa expert Darshened in front of Rebbi Elazar the Pasuk "ve'Im
ba'Beheimah ha'Temei'ah u'Fadah be'Erk'cha" - referring to Hekdesh Bedek
ha'Bayis (which belong to Hekdesh, but is not intrinsically holy).
(c) The Tana is comparing other Kodshim to Bedek ha'Bayis because of two
specific characteristics - 1. that it is initially Hekdesh (Hekdesh Rishon),
and 2. that it all goes to Hashem ('Kulah la'Shamayim'), and neither the
owner nor the Kohen receives anything from it.
(a) The Tana concludes 'Mo'alin Bah'. 'Kulah la'Shamayim' precludes -
Shelamim from Me'ilah (see Tosfos DH 'le'Inyan').
When Rebbi Elazar put this to the Beraisa expert, his response was that is
what he had indeed meant to say.
(b) In fact however, the Tana cannot be referring to Me'ilah, because if it
were, then to preclude 'Sof Hekdesh' from Me'ilah would be incorrect. It is
also not possible to learn like that - because the Pasuk is talking about
Chomesh, and not about Me'ilah.
(c) When the Tana says 'Techilas Hekdesh', he is actually precluding 'Sof
Hekdesh' from Chomesh (like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi).
(d) He referred to it as 'Me'ilah' - because the Din of Chomesh is connected
to that of Me'ilah.