(a)In Rav Asi's opinion, what do the Mitzvah of Chalah, Matzos on Pesach and an Esrog on Succos all have in common, according to Rebbi Meir?
(b)What is Rebbi Meir's source for ...
1. ... Chalah?
2. ... an Esrog?
3. ... Matzah?
(c)What do the Rabanan hold?
(d)The Beraisa cites the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan with regard to Chalah. Is this a proof for Rav Asi, that they also argue by Esrog? If not, what might we otherwise learn from the word "Lachem"?
(a)In Rav Asi's opinion, according to Rebbi Meir, the Mitzvah of Chalah, Matzos on Pesach and an Esrog on Succos all have in common - the fact that they are not applicable by Ma'aser Sheni: Chalah of Ma'aser Sheni is Patur from Chalah, one is not Yotzei with Matzah of Ma'aser Sheni and one will not be Yotzei with an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni.
(b)Rebbi Meir's source for ...
1. ... Chalah - is the Pasuk in Shelach-Lecha "Arisoseichem", implying that the dough must be one's personal property, and not belong to Hekdesh (which Ma'aser Sheni does, according to Rebbi Meir, who holds 'Ma'aser Sheni Mamon Gavo'ah Hu'.
2. ... an Esrog - is the Pasuk in Emor "u'Lekachtem Lachem", with the same implication as that of Chalah.
3. ... Matzah - from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Lechem" "Lechem" from Chalah.
(c)According to the Rabanan - Ma'aser Sheni is Mamon Hedyot (one's personal property, so all the previous Derashos do not apply.
(d)The Beraisa, which cites the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan with regard to Chalah, may hold that, of the three, it is only Chalah that, in Rebbi Meir's opinion, does not apply by Ma'aser Sheni - because he Darshens from the superfluous "Arisoseichem" (which is written twice) but not by the other two. From the word "Lachem" - we might otherwise preclude a borrowed or a stolen Esrog. Nor do we know that the Tana of the Beraisa learns the 'Gezeirah Shavah' "Lechem" "Lechem" (Rabeinu Chananel).
(a)We learnt above, (on 36a) that according to Rebbi Akiva, one is Yotzei with Matzah of Ma'aser-Sheni. Why might one nevertheless not be Yotzei with Chalah of Ma'aser-Sheni (according to the Rabanan of Rebbi Meir - see previous question)?
(b)Why, on the other hand, is one possibly Yotzei?
(a)Even though one is Yotzei with Matzah of Ma'aser Sheni which is Chulin (i.e. not Chalah) - that is only because it has a potential Heter of 'be'Chol Moshvos' (should it become Tamei, as we learnt above - on 36b - according to Rebbi Elazar); one will not perhaps be Yotzei with Matzah of Chalah of Ma'aser Sheni, which does not (since once Chalah becomes Tamei it may not be eaten).
(b)On the other hand, perhaps one will - because (bearing in mind that Chalah does not negate the status of Matzah - as we learnt in our Mishnah 35a) should it become Tamei, we will say 'Ho'il v'Ilu Lo Kara Lah Shem', since, if he had not declared it Chalah, he would have been able to redeem it and eat it.
(a)According to the second Lashon, we may assume that, in the previous case, one will be Yotzei, because of the 'Ho'il', and the She'eilah concerns the Chalah that one separated from grain that he purchased with Ma'aser-Sheni money. What are the two sides of the She'eilah there?
(b)Why is this She'eilah not valid according to the Rabanan of Rebbi Yehudah? What do they hold?
(c)Why does Rebbi Yehudah rule that produce bought with Ma'aser-Sheni money which became Tamei, must be burnt? Why can it not be redeemed?
(a)The She'eilah by Chalah that was taken from grain that was purchased with Ma'aser-Sheni money - is that now, we need to come on to, not one 'Ho'il', but two. Why is that? Because any fruit that is purchased with Ma'aser Sheni money which became Tamei, cannot be redeemed and must be buried. So we will have to say 'Ho'il' - had he not transferred the original Ma'aser into money, and now into the grain from which he separated Chalah, it would have had a Heter b'Chol Moshvos. In addition, had he not declared the dough Chalah, it would have had a Heter b'Chol Moshvos. The She'eilah is whether we say two Ho'ils.
(b)This She'eilah does not even begin according to the Rabanan of Rebbi Yehudah - who hold that fruit that is purchased with Ma'aser Sheni money which became Tamei, can be redeemed. Consequently, it has exactly the same Heter Moshvos as the Ma'aser Sheni fruit itself.
(c)Rebbi Yehudah rules that produce bought with Ma'aser-Sheni money that became Tamei cannot be redeemed and must be buried - because its Kedushah is diminished and is therefore not subject to redemption.
(a)Why is Chalas-Ma'aser Tehorah not also a case of two Ho'ils ('Ho'il v'Lo Kara Aleha Shem' & 'Ho'il v'Iy Mitamei, Parik Lah')?
(b)What is the outcome of the She'eilah? Is a Kohen Yotzei the Mitzvah of Matzah with the Chalah of produce purchased with Ma'aser-Sheni money, or not, and why is that?
(a)Chalas-Ma'aser Tehorah is not considered a case of two Ho'ils ('Ho'il v'Lo Kara Aleha Shem' & 'Ho'il v'Iy Mitamei, Parik Lah') - because any Ho'il which lies within one's power to put into practice, is not considered Ho'il in this regard (and in this case, he can be Metamei the Chalah and redeem it).
(b)The Gemara concludes that, since the Chalah stemmed from Ma'aser, and, as we stated earlier, Chalah per se, does not detract from the status of Matzah, we give the Chalah the same Din as the Ma'aser from which it stemmed, and a Kohen can be Yotzei Matzah with it.
(a)'Chalos Todah u'Rekikei Nazir, As'an l'Atzmo, Ein Yotz'in Bahen'. How does Rabah learn this from the Pasuk in Bo "u'Shemartem es ha'Matzos"?
(b)Rav Yosef learns it from "Shiv'as Yamim Matzos Tochelu" (ibid). How does he learn it from there?
(c)What is the practical difference between the two explanations?
(a)Rabah learns from the Pasuk "u'Shemartem es ha'Matzos" - that one can only be Yotzei with Matzos that were guarded for the Mitzvah of Matzah, to preclude Matzos which were guarded for a Korban, and not for the Mitzvah of Matzah.
(b)Rav Yosef learns from "Shiv'as Yamim Matzos Tochelu" - that Matzos for Pesach must be guarded to be eaten for seven days; whereas the Matzos for a Todah can only be eaten for one day.
(c)The practical difference between the two explanations lies when one guarded the Matzos both for a Korban Todah and to eat on Pesach: according to Rabah he will be Yotzei, whereas according to Rav Yosef (who requires Matzah for seven days) he will not.
(a)Is an Onan permitted to eat Kodshim?
(b)In that case, why do we need a new Pasuk to teach us that one cannot be Yotzei with Chalos Todah u'Rekikei Nazir? Why do we not know that already from the Pasuk "Lechem Oni" - 'Mi she'Ne'echal ba'Aninus, Yatza Zeh she'Eino Ne'echal ba'Aninus Ela b'Simchah"?
(c)In that case, why is it not Pasul because of the oil that it contained, since, according to Rebbi Akiva, we Darshen 'Lechem Ani' (to preclude Matzah Ashirah)?
(a)An Onan is not permitted to eat Kodshim, Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser, where the Torah writes "Lo Achalti v'Oni Mimenah".
(b)Those who need a new Pasuk to teach us that one cannot be Yotzei with Chalos Todah u'Rekikei Nazir, rather than from the Pasuk "Lechem Oni", ('Mi she'Ne'echal ba'Aninus, Yatza Zeh she'Eino Ne'echal ba'Aninus Ela b'Simchah') - hold like Rebbi Akiva, who Darshens 'Lechem Ani' and not 'Lechem Oni', and who therefore permits Matzah of Ma'aser Sheni.
(c)The Todah only contained a very small quantity of oil (a quarter Lug for twenty loaves), not sufficient to render the bread Matzah Ashirah.
(a)Considering that the Chalos Todah and Rekikei Nazir (like all Kodshim Kalim) had to be eaten in Yerushalayim, why are they not disqualified from the Pasuk in Bo "b'*Chol Moshvoseichem* Tochlu Matzos" (see Sugya, 36b)?
(b)Which category of Korbanos could be brought on the Bamah Gedolah in Nov and Giv'on ...
1. ... according to Rebbi Shimon (in the first Perek of Megilah?
2. ... according to the Tana in the last Perek of Zevachim?
(a)The Chalos Todah and Rekikei Nazir are not disqualified from the Pasuk "b'*Chol Moshvoseichem* Tochlu Matzos" - because they were also brought on the Bamah in Nov and Giv'on, when they could be eaten anywhere in Eretz Yisrael.
(b)They could bring on the Bamah Gedolah in Nov and Giv'on ...
1. ... according to Rebbi Shimon - only obligatory Korbanos that had a fixed time (e.g. the Korban Tamid and the Korban Musaf).
2. ... according to the Tana in the last Perek of Zevachim - as far as Korbanos Yachid were concerned, only Shelamim and Olos.
(a)Why should there be a difference between Chalos Todah and Rekikei Nazir which one made for oneself and those which he made to sell in the market?
(a)Chalos Todah and Rekikei Nazir which one made for oneself - one tended to designate unconditionally to use for one's Korban, in which case, they were Pasul, since they were not guarded according to the Torah's specification (as we learnt at the beginning of the Amud). Those that he made to sell in the market, on the other hand, he had in mind initially to use on Pesach should he not find purchasers. In that case, he guarded the Matzos with two specific intentions, one of them for Matzah that was eaten for seven days (See foot of 8a., where the Gemara endorses something that is done with two specific intentions).