Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah rules that something that is fit either for the Mizbe'ach, or for Bedek ha'Bayis, or even for neither - is subject to Me'ilah. Note, that the Mishnah in the Mishnayos concludes 'Divrei Rebbi Yehudah'.

(b) The Tana rules that if someone declares Hekdesh a pit full of water, a trash-heap full of dung, a dove-cot full of doves, a fruit-tree full of fruit or a field full of grass - both the original Hekdesh objects (the pit ...) and the contents are subject to Me'ilah.

(c) But if the pit, the trash-heap, the dove-cot, the fruit-tree or the field filled only after he declared them Hekdesh - then the contents are not subject to Me'ilah.

(d) The Kedushah that is fit neither for the Mizbe'ach, nor for Bedek ha'Bayis is - Kedushas Damim (where it stands to be sold and the proceeds used for Hekdesh).

(a) A pit full of water is ...

1. ... fit for Bedek ha'Bayis - to manufacture cement (see also Tosfos DH 'Aval').
2. ... not fit for Kodshei Mizbe'ach (in the form of Nisuch ha'Mayim) - because they would only use water from the spring of Shilo'ach.

(b) A trash-heap full of dung belongs to the category of - 'Lo le'Mizbe'ach ve'Lo le'Bedek ha'Bayis'.

(c) The fruit of a grape-vine is fit for the Mizbe'ach in the form of wine for the Nesachim). The Tana cannot be referring to any of the fruit-trees from which one brings Bikurim - because Bikurim do not go on the Mizbe'ach.

(d) The vine itself is not fit for Bedek ha'Bayis - because the branches are too thin to be made into beams of wood.

(a) A field full of grass too, belongs to the category of - 'Lo le'Mizbe'ach ve'Lo le'Bedek ha'Bayis'.

(b) Rebbi Yossi rules - that if someone declares Hekdesh a field or a tree - what subsequently grows from it is subject to Me'ilah, because he holds ...

(c) ... 'Mo'alin bi'Shevach Hekdesh' (what grows from Hekdesh is subject to Me'ilah), whilst the Tana Kama holds 'Ein Mo'alin bi'Shevach Hekdesh'.

(d) He argues in these two cases, and not in he other three (a pit full water, a trash-heap full of dung and a dove-cot full of doves) - because the latter are brought to the Hekdesh externally, as opposed to the former, which actually grow from it).

(a) The Tana forbids the V'lad of an animal that is Ma'aser Beheimah or Hekdesh from feeding from its mother - because the milk is Hekdesh, whereas the V'lad is Chulin (see Tosfos DH V'lad Me'useres'), in which case, the owner is deriving benefit from Hekdesh.

(b) When he says 'va'Acherim Misnadvin Kein', he means - that some people would send their female animals into the pen to be Ma'asered on condition that the milk should remain Chulin (to enable the V'lad to feed be'Heter), and he refers to them as 'Acherim' (which is a derogatory title) because they ought not to be so lenient.

(c) This is Halachically permitted - since he could have delayed placing the mother in the pen until later (see also the commentaries on the Mishnah).

(d) The Tana finally - forbids a worker to eat figs, or a cow, oats, from the Hekdesh field where they are working.

(a) Rav Achdevoy bar Ami learns via the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from Bechor ...

1. ... "Ha'avarah" ("Shiv'as Yamim Yih'yeh im Imo") "Ha'avarah" "Shiv'as Yamim Yih'yeh im Imo") - that one is Mo'el on every part of Ma'aser Beheimah (such as the milk [or the V'lad]).
2. ... "Imo" ("Shiv'as "Shiv'as Yamim Yih'yeh im Imo") "Imo" ("Vehayah Shiv'as Yamim Tachas Imo") - that one is Mo'el on every part of a Beheimas Hekdesh (such as the V'lad [or the milk]).

(b) We learn both of these from Bechor - since Bechor is a male, in which case every part of it is automatically included in the Isur Hana'ah (and likewise a female Ma'aser or Mukdashin animal).

(c) We learn from the Pasuk "Ki Savo be'Kerem *Rei'echa*, ve'Achalta" - that the Heter for an employee to eat from the fruit on which he is working does not extend to one who is working with fruit-trees belonging to Hekdesh (see also Tosfos DH 'Mai Ta'ama').

(d) And Rav Achdevui bar Ami learns from the Pasuk "Lo Sachsom Shor be'Disho" - that neither does the Din permitting an animal to eat from the corn which it is threshing, extend to an animal who is threshing the corn of Hekdesh (see Tosfos, Ibid.).

(a) Someone who threshes Kal'ilin (a species of legumes) of Chulin in a field of Hekdesh - is Mo'el.

(b) The problem with this is - that Me'ilah is confined to things that are detached from the ground (whereas the earth itself is considered attached).

(c) The answer is - that one is Chayav for having benefited from the dust that gathers from the threshing ...

(d) ... indeed Ravina extrapolates from here, that dust is good for the Ka'l'ilin?

7)

(a) Our Mishnah rules - that the roots of a tree belonging to a Hedyot that grow into a field belonging to Hekdesh or vice-versa - 'Lo Nehenin ve'Lo Mo'alin'.

(b) 'Lo Mo'alin' - since it is only something that both grows from a tree of Hekdesh and is located in a field of Hekdesh that is subject to Me'ilah.

(c) And the Tana rules in the case of a spring belonging to a Hedyot ...

1. ... whose water flows into a field belonging to Hekdesh - 'Lo Nehenin ve'Lo Mo'alin'.
2. ... once the water has flowed out of the Hekdesh field - that is permitted Lechatchilah.

(a) When the Tana rules 'Lo Nehenin ve'Lo Mo'alin' with regard to ...

1. ... the water in the golden barrel - he is referring to the barrel with which they drew the water for Nisuch ha'Mayim on Succos.
2. ... the Aravah - he is referring to the Aravah which the Kohanim used to take round the Mizbe'ach, and on whose Yesod they ultimately placed it.

(b) The former become subject to Me'ilah - once they are transferred to the golden jar from which they will be poured on to the Mizbe'ach.

(c) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok - maintains - that the Kohanim used to benefit from them, by taking it together with their Lulav (because he holds that performing a Mitzvah is not classified as a Hana'ah [see Tosfos]).

(a) Resh Lakish qualifies the ruling in our Mishnah which exempts the water in the golden barrel from Me'ilah. He hold that one is Chayav - as long as it contains exactly three Lugin.

(b) We refute Resh Lakish's statement from the Seifa of our Mishnah however 'Nasnu li'Tzeluchis, Mo'alin Bah' - which indicates that 'Ein Mo'alin Bah' in the Reisha refers even to three Lugin (since that was the amount that the Kohen used).

(c) We therefore re-establish his statement, connecting it with the Seifa - on which he comments 'Ein Mo'alin Ela bi'Sheloshah Lugin'.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan rules - 'Mo'alin be'Chulan' ...

(b) ... because he holds that the Nisuch ha'Mayim has no fixed Shi'ur, whereas according to Resh Lakish, the Shi'ur is three Lugin (no more, no less).

(c) We query Resh Lakish however, from another statement of his. Rebbi Elazar in the Mishnah in Zevachim, rules that if someone pours water of Nisuch ha'Mayim on Succos on a Mizbe'ach outside the Azarah - is Chayav (because whatever is eligible to go on the Mizbe'ach bi'Fenim, one is Chayav for pouring ba'Chutz).

(d) Rebbi Yochanan, citing Menachem Yudfa'ah, explains that Rebbi Elazar follows the opinion of his Rebbe, Rebbi Akiva, who learns from the Pasuk "u'Nesachehah" - that there are two Nisuchim, Nisuch ha'Yayin and Nisuch ha'Mayim (a proof that Nisuch ha'Mayim is mi'd'Oraysa, which explains Rebbi Elazar in the Mishnah in Zevachim).

(a) We now extrapolate from Resh Lakish, who comments 'I Mah Yayin Shalosh Lugin, Af Mayim Shalosh Lugin ... ' - that in fact, Nisuch ha'Mayim has no Shi'ur (which seems to contradict his previous ruling).

(b) And we reconcile the two statements of Resh Lakish - by establishing the latter one like Menachem Yudfa'ah (in keeping with the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan, whom Resh Lakish disputes).

(a) Our Mishnah rules in connection with a bird's nest that is located on top of ...

1. ... a tree of Avodah-Zarah - 'Lo Nehenin, ve'Lo Mo'alin'.
2. ... an Asheirah tree - that one should tipple it off the tree with a cane, seeing as he is forbidden to climb the tree, which is Asur be'Hana'ah.

(b) And the Tana rules that if someone who declares a forest Hekdesh - the tree, the branches and the leaves are subject to Me'ilah.