1)

(a)We cite the Mishnah in Me'ilah which discusses the Din of Me'ilah regarding three categories of Hekdesh. What is the Tana in Me'ilah referring to when he speaks about Hekdesh that is fit for ...

1. ... the Mizbe'ach but not for Bedek ha'Bayis?

2. ... Bedek ha'Bayis but not the Mizbe'ach?

3. ... neither? Then on what basis are they Hekdesh?

(b)Why are the things listed in the first group not fit for Bedek ha'Bayis?

(c)What does the Tana say about all three cases? What do they all have in common?

(d)What is the significance of the sequence in which the Mishnah lists the three groupings?

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,.

2)

(a)What does the Tana say about 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? What do they all have in common?

(b)At which point is one Mo'el?

(c)What does Rebbi Yehudah say in a case where they are all filled only after the owner declared them Hekdesh?

(d)What does Rebbi Yossi say about a field and a tree?

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.

3)

(a)What Halachic distinction does Rebbi draw, with regard to the above Machlokes, between the case of the pit and that of the dove-cot on the one hand, and a field and a tree on the other?

(b)What is the basis for this distinction?

(c)What problem do we have with Rebbi declaring that Rebbi Yossi is right in the case of a field and a tree?

(d)How could we query Rebbi in the same way regarding the other half of his declaration 'Nir'in Divrei Rebbi Yehudah be'Bor ve'Shuvach'?

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'.

4)

(a)What do we mean when we suggest that Rebbi Yossi only mentioned a field and a tree in order to challenge Rebbi Yehudah?

(b)We refute this suggestion however, from another Beraisa. What does Rebbi Yossi say there, which proves that what he said in the previous Beraisa was his personal opinion (and not just a challenge on Rebbi Yehudah ruling)?

(c)Then what did Rebbi really say?

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.

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'; Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon disagrees. How does Rabah initially establish their Machlokes?

(b)What will the Tana'im then hold by a pit and a dove-cot?

(c)Which other Machlokes is this synomymous with

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.

6)

(a)In the Seifa 'Hikdishan Melei'in', the Tana Kama says 'Mo'alin Bahen u'va'Meh she'be'Tochan'. What do we mean when we say 'Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon Machlif'?

(b)What problem does Abaye present Rabah from Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon's opinion in the Seifa of the Beraisa?

(c)Why is it so obvious that if the fruit was there initially, it ought to be Hekdesh?

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').

79b----------------------------------------79b

7)

(a)How do we now amend Rabah's interpretation of the Machlokes? In which case do they really argue?

(b)And what will both Tana'im hold in the case of a field and a tree?

(c)We now have two Machlokos, one in the Reisha and one in the Seifa. What is 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'?

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).

8)

(a)On what condition does Rebbi Meir hold 'Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam'?

(b)It is not Rebbi Meir himself who draws this distinction, but Rav Huna, who holds like him. What example does Rav Huna give of something that is 'Avidi de'asu'?)

(c)Then how can we establish Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon like Rebbi Meir in the case of ...

1. ... the water in the pit?

2. ... the doves in the dove-cot (neither of which appears to be inevitable at all)?

(d)What if the dove-cot that is close by belongs to somebody else?

(e)Why is that?

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')?

9)

(a)How does Rava establish the declaration of Hekdesh in the Seifa (where the water and the doves were there before the Hekdesh)?

(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'. What does Rebbi Shimon say there about someone who sells a pit which is full of water (though that is not the actual case of Rebbi Shimon there)?

(c)What does his son Rebbi Elazar now hold?

(d)Then why does he hold in the Reisha (where the Hekdesh preceded the water and the doves) 'Mo'alin bo u'va'Meh she'be'Tocho'? Why does he not apply the S'vara 'Makdish, be'Ayin Ra'ah Makdish' there too?

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).

10)

(a)How does Rava reconcile this with our Mishnah 'Machar Bor, Machar Meimehah'? Like whom does he establish it in order to consolidate his explanation?

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).

11)

(a)We just established our Mishnah like Rebbi Nasan (whom we referred to as an individual opinion). Why does it not necessarily follow that the Halachah is not like him?

(b)Then why do we refer to it as an individual opinion?

(c)Would the same apply if an Amora, in refuting a Kashya directed at him from a Stam Mishnah, answered 'Yechida'ah Hi'?

(d)What might the Rabbanan of Rebbi Nasan ('Hikdishan Melei'in, Mo'alin Bahen u'va'Meh she'be'Tochan') then hold?

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.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF