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