1)

WHICH TANA'IM HOLD EIN BREIRAH?

(a)

Question: Rav should rather say that we learn from our Mishnah that Ayo's Beraisa is mistaken! (Mishnayos are more authoritative than Beraisos.)

(b)

Answer: We have another source that R. Yehudah holds Ein Breirah:

1.

(Beraisa #1 - R. Meir): If one bought [100 Lugim of] wine from Kusim [and lacks Kelim into which to put the tithes], he says 'the two Lugim that I will separate later should be Terumah. Ten Lugim [that I will separate] are Ma'aser Rishon, and nine Lugim are Ma'aser Sheni.' He (Rashi - redeems the Ma'aser Sheni and) may drink immediately;

2.

R. Yehudah, R. Yosi and R. Shimon forbid.

(c)

(Ula): Beraisa #1 teaches that Ayo's Beraisa is mistaken.

(d)

Question: R. Yehudah holds Ein Breirah in Beraisa #1 (it supports Ayo)!

(e)

Answer #1: Ula's text of Beraisa #1 puts R. Yehudah with R. Meir. I.e. R. Meir and R. Yehudah permit, and R. Yosi and R. Shimon forbid. (On Amud B we will give other answers to every question based on Beraisa #1.)

(f)

Question: R. Yosi holds Yesh Breirah!

1.

(Mishnah - R. Yosi): If each of two women are obligated to offer a Kan (Chatas ha'Of and Olas ha'Of) and they bought four birds together, or gave money together to a Kohen [to buy and offer four birds], the Kohen may offer any [two] birds for Chata'os and the others for Olos [one of each for each woman. We say retroactively that each bird offered for each woman belonged to her. This relies on Breirah!]

(g)

Answer #1 (Rabah): No, the case is, they stipulated [Ri - which bird belongs to each woman. The birds were never mixed up.]

(h)

Objection: If so, this is obvious!

(i)

Answer: It teaches Rav Chisda's law (Ri - and that we do not decree due to when they did not stipulate, for then Breirah would be required).

1.

(Rav Chisda): A Kan becomes specified (which is the Chatas and which is the Olah) only [by the owner] at the time he bought it, or [if he did not specify then, by the Kohen] when the Kohen offers it [even if the owner later tried to specify it].

37b----------------------------------------37b

(j)

Question: Elsewhere, R. Yosi holds Yesh Breirah!

1.

(Mishnah - R. Yosi): If [Reuven,] an Am ha'Aretz [who is not trustworthy about Ma'aser] asked a Chaver (Shimon) to buy an [extra] bundle of vegetables or bun for him [and Shimon bought for himself and Reuven from an Am ha'Aretz], Shimon need not tithe [what he gives to Reuven. We say that retroactively, what he gives to Reuven was never his. He was a mere Shali'ach to buy it for him. The others he bought for himself];

2.

Chachamim say, he must tithe it.

(k)

Answer #1: The opinions must be switched.

(l)

Question (Beraisa #2 - R. Yosi): If one declares 'my Ma'aser is redeemed on the first coin that I will pull out of my wallet', it takes effect.

(m)

Correction: It should say 'it does not take effect.'

(n)

Question: Why switch two (that Mishnah and Beraisa) due to one (Beraisa #1)? It is better to switch one due to two!

(o)

Answer: Surely, Beraisa #2 must be switched!

1.

(Seifa of Beraisa #2): R. Yosi agrees that if one declares 'the Ma'aser in my house is redeemed on the new coin that I will pull out of my wallet', it is redeemed.

2.

Since here R. Yosi says 'it is redeemed', this implies that above he says that it is not redeemed!

(p)

Question: What is the case of a new coin?

1.

If there is more than one new coin in the wallet, this is just like the Reisha!

(q)

Answer: There is only one new coin.

(r)

Question: If so, why does it say 'that I will pull out of my wallet'? (This does not affect the redemption!)

(s)

Answer: This is merely for consistency with the Reisha, which discusses pulling out a coin [among several coins].

2)

DISTINCTIONS OF WHEN WE CAN APPLY YESH BREIRAH

(a)

Question (Rava): Who is the Tana of the following Beraisa, who holds that Ein Breirah even regarding mid'Rabanan laws?

1.

(Beraisa): If Reuven said to five people 'I will be Me'arev for whichever of you that I desire. The one I pick will go':

i.

If he decided before Shabbos, the Eruv works [for that person]. If not, it does not.

(b)

Rav Nachman could not answer.

(c)

Question: Why didn't he say that it is the Tana of Ayo's Beraisa?

(d)

Answer: He had not heard the Beraisa.

(e)

(Rav Yosef): Tana'im argue about this (whether or not Yesh Breirah):

1.

(Beraisa): If one said 'I will be Me'arev for every Shabbos of the year that I will want to go', if he decided before Shabbos, the Eruv is valid for that Shabbos;

2.

R. Shimon says, [even] if he decided after dark it is valid;

3.

Chachamim say, in this case it is invalid.

(f)

Question: R. Shimon contradicts himself. Elsewhere (Mishnah #1), he holds that Ein Breirah!

(g)

Answer #1: The opinions in the Beraisa must be switched.

(h)

Question: Why must we switch the opinions? Perhaps R. Shimon holds that Yesh Breirah for mid'Rabanan laws, but Ein Breirah for mid'Oraisa laws!

(i)

Answer: Rav Yosef holds that the Tana'im do not distinguish between mid'Oraisa and mid'Rabanan regarding Breirah.

(j)

Answer #2 (to every question based on Beraisa #1): Normally, they (R. Yehudah, R. Yosi and R. Shimon) hold that Yesh Breirah. Terumah is different, for "Reishis [Deganecha...]" teaches that the remnants after taking Reishis (Terumah) must be recognizable [at the time of separation].

(k)

Question (Abaye): If so, if one had two pomegranates of Tevel and said 'if it will rain today, this one should be Terumah on the other, and if not, vice-versa', will you say that nothing happens whether or not it rains?

1.

Suggestion: Indeed, this is true!

2.

Rejection (Mishnah - R. Shimon): If one said 'the Terumah for this pile is inside it, and the Ma'aseros are inside it, and Terumas Ma'aser is inside it, this takes effect [even though we do not know where they are].

(l)

Answer: There, remnants are recognizable. The outside of the pile is Chulin! (He declared the tithes to be inside.)

(m)

Answer #3 (to the questions based on Beraisa #1): A Beraisa teaches that they agree that Yesh Breirah. (They forbid for a different reason):

1.

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah, R. Yosi and R. Shimon, to R. Meir): Aren't you concerned lest the barrel break, and retroactively he drank Tevel [for he will never be able to separate the tithes]?

2.

R. Meir: Until it breaks, we are not concerned.

(n)

Question: According to Answer #2 (the remnants must be recognizable), how do we understand their challenge to R. Meir?

(o)

Answer: They say 'we say that the remnants must be recognizable, so this does not work at all;

1.

Even you should forbid, lest the barrel break, and he will have drunk Tevel retroactively!'

2.

R. Meir answered that until it breaks, we are not concerned.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF