Previous Daf

BAVA BASRA 79

Ask A Question

click for question
1)
(a) We cite the Mishnah in Me'ilah which discusses the Din of Me'ilah regarding three categories of Hekdesh. When the Tana speaks about Hekdesh that is fit for ...
1. ... the Mizbe'ach but not for Bedek ha'Bayis, he is referring to unblemished oxen, sheep and goats, pigeons and doves, flour, wine and oil, which are all fit to go on the Mizbe'ach.
2. ... Bedek ha'Bayis but not the Mizbe'ach he is referring to things like gold, silver and precious stones, wood, stones and other building materials.
3. ... neither he is referring to foodstuffs such as milk cheese, and fish-juice, trash-heaps, grass and the likes, for which Hekdesh has no specific use. These are known as 'Kedushas Damim', which are holy for their sale value, but not intrinsically.
(b) The things listed in the first group are not fit for Bedek ha'Bayis because there is an Aseh prohibiting the use of something that is fit to go on the Mizbe'ach for Bedek ha'Bayis.
(c) The Tana says about all of these that they, as well as whatever is inside them, are subject to Me'ilah.
(d) The significance of the sequence in which the Mishnah lists the three groupings is that seeing as their Kedushah is regressive, the Chidush is progressive,.

click for question
2)
(a) The Tana states that if one derives benefit from a pit full of water, a trash-heap full of manure, a dove-cot full of doves, a field with herbs growing in it and a laden fruit-tree, if one declares the container Hekdesh one is Mo'el, irrespective of whether one benefited from the container or from its contents.
(b) One is Mo'el as soon as one derives a Perutah's-worth of benefit from the Hekdesh article.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah maintains that in a case where they are all filled only after the owner declared them Hekdesh then only the receptacles are subject to Me'ilah, but not the contents.
(d) Rebbi Yosi holds that what grows afterwards in a field or on a tree of Hekdesh, is Hekdesh too.

click for question
3)
(a) Rebbi maintains, with regard to the above Machlokes that the Halachah is like Rebbi Yehudah in the case of water in a pit and doves in a dove-cot, but like Rebbi Yosi in the case of herbs in a field and fruit on a tree.
(b) The basis for this distinction is the fact that in the case of the field and the tree, the herbs and the fruit actually grow from Hekdesh, whereas the water in the pit and the doves in a dove-cot do not grow from the container.
(c) The problem with Rebbi declaring that Rebbi Yosi is right in the case of a field and a tree is that this implies that he argues by a pit and a dove-cot, too, whereas in fact he only mentions a field and a tree in his statement, but says nothing about the pit and the dove-cot.
(d) We could query Rebbi in the same way regarding the other half of his declaration 'Nir'in Divrei Rebbi Yehudah be'Bor ve'Shuvach'.

click for question
4)
(a) When we suggest that Rebbi Yosi only mentioned a field and a tree in order to challenge Rebbi Yehudah, we mean that really he argues with Rebbi Yehudah even by a pit and dove-cot too, and he only mentioned a field and a tree, to suggest that at least there, Rebbi Yehudah ought to agree with him (for the reason that we just mentioned).
(b) We refute this suggestion however, from another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yosi specifically states that he only argues with Rebbi Yehudah by a field and a tree, proving that what he said in the previous Beraisa was his personal opinion (and not just a challenge on Rebbi Yehudah ruling).
(c) Consequently, what Rebbi really said was that Rebbi Yehudah's words appeal to Rebbi Yosi only in the case of a pit and a dove-cot, but not in that of a field or a tree, where he disagrees with him.

click for question
5)
(a) In another Beraisa, which discusses 'Hikdishan ve'Achar-kach Nismal'u', the Tana Kama holds 'Mo'alin Bahen ve'Ein Mo'alin ba'Meh she'be'Tochan', and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon disagrees. Initially, Rabah establishes their Machlokes ...
(b) ... by a field and a tree (but by a pit and a dove-cot, both will agree that the water and the doves that came only later, are not Hekdesh ...
(c) ... which is synonymous with the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yosi in the previous Beraisa that we just established.

click for question
6)
(a) In the Seifa 'Hikdishan Melei'in', the Tana Kama says 'Mo'alin Bahen u'va'Meh she'be'Tochan'. When we say 'Rebbi Elazar be'Rebbi Shimon Machlif', we mean that in this case he holds 'Moa'lin Bahen, ve'Ein Mo'alin ba'Meh she'be'Tochan'.
(b) The problem Abaye presents Rabah from the Seifa of the Beraisa is that if, as Rabah explained, the Beraisa speaks about Sadeh ve'Ilan, then, seeing as Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon holds 'Mo'alin Bahen u'va'Meh she'be'Tochan' when the herbs and the fruit grew only afterwards, then 'Kal va'Chomer', asks Abaye, when they were there initially?
(c) It is obvious that if the fruit was there initially, it ought to be Hekdesh because a. it is 'Gidulei Hekdesh' (it grew from Hekdesh) and b. since he declared the entire pit Hekdesh, it is not worse than a sale, where everything inside the pit is sold (see Tosfos DH 've'I').

click for question
7)
(a) We therefore amend Rabah's interpretation of the Machlokes establishing it by a pit and a dove-cot (in which case, Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon argues with Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yosi in the previous Beraisa).
(b) In the case of a field and a tree however, both Tana'im will agree that whatever subsequently grows there is Hekdesh (like Rebbi Yosi there).
(c) We now have two Machlokos, one in the Reisha and one in the Seifa. The basis of their Machlokes in the Reisha (where the water and the doves came after the Hekdesh, and) where the Tana Kama holds ' ... Ein Mo'alin ba'Meh she'be'Tocho' and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon holds 'Mo'alin' is whether whether it is possible to effect a Kinyan on something that is not yet in the world ('Adam Makneh Davar he'Lo Ba le'Olam' like Rebbi Meir [Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon]), or not (the Rabanan).

click for question
8)
(a) Rebbi Meir does holds 'Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam' provided it is like the fruit of a date-palm, which will inevitably grow (' ... de'Avidi de'Asu').
(b) It is not Rebbi Meir himself who draws this distinction, but Rav Huna, who holds like him and who gives an example (of 'Avidi de'Asu') of a date-palm and the like.
(c) Nevertheless, Rava establishes Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon like Rebbi Meir, by establishing the case of ...
1. ... the water in the pit where there is a slope leading to his pit, in which case, when it rains, the water will inevitably flow into it.
2. ... the doves in the dove-cot where he owns another dove-cot nearby, and the doves are bound to fly from one to the other.
(d) This will not apply however (the doves will not be Hekdesh) if the neighboring dove-cot belongs to somebody else ...
(e) ... because then there is nothing stopping the owner from taking the doves for himself (in which case it is not a case of 'Avidi de'Asu')?

click for question
9)
(a) Rava establishes the declaration of Hekdesh in the Seifa (where the water and the doves were there before the Hekdesh) where he was Makdish the pit and the dove-cot Stam (without including its contents).
(b) And to explain Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon ('Ein Mo'alin ba'Meh she'be'Tocho'), he establishes him like his father in 'ha'Mocher es ha'Bayis', where Rebbi Shimon rules that if someone sells a pit that is full of water he has not sold the water (because he holds 'Mocher be'Ayin Ra'ah Mocher' [though that is not the actual case of Rebbi Shimon there]).
(c) His son Rebbi Elazar now holds that just as a seller sells reluctantly, so too, is someone who is Makdish, is Makdish reluctantly.
(d) Nevertheless, he holds in the Reisha (where the Hekdesh preceded the water and the doves) 'Mo'alin bo u'va'Meh she'be'Tocho' because the Sevara 'Makdish, be'Ayin Ra'ah Makdish' is only applicable when the owner already owns it (and wants to retain what he owns).

click for question
10)
(a) Rava reconciles this with our Mishnah 'Machar Bor, Machar Meimehah' by establishing the latter like Rebbi Nasan, who argues with the Rabanan in a Beraisa (with whom Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon concurs).

click for question
11)
(a) The fact that we just established our Mishnah like Rebbi Nasan (whom we referred to as an individual opinion) does . This does not necessarily mean that the Halachah is not like him because we have a principle 'Stam be'Masnisin u'Machlokes bi'Beraisa, Halachah ki'Stam be'Masnisin' (and our Stam Mishnah holds like Rebbi Nasan).
(b) We nevertheless refer to it as an individual opinion in order to justify Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon disagreement (though a Tana is not really bound by other opinions).
(c) If an Amora, in refuting a Kashya directed at him from a Stam Mishnah, would answer 'Yechida'ah Hi' we would rule like the Amora (and not like the Stam Mishnah).
(d) The Rabanan of Rebbi Nasan ('Hikdishan Melei'in, Mo'alin Bahen u'va'Meh she'be'Tochan') either hold 'be'Ayin Yafah Makdish' (even though they hold 'be'Ayin Ra'ah Mocher'), or like Rebbi Nasan, that both a seller and a Makdish sell and are Makdish generously.

Next Daf