1)

(a)Our Mishnah incorporates in the Din of Ma'aser Behemah animals that are born in Chutz la'Aretz and animals that are born when there is no Beis-ha'Mikdash - but not animals that are Mukdashim.

(b)It applies to - Bakar va'Tzon (cattle, sheep and goats).

(c)When the Mishnah includes Chadash and Yashan animals in the Din of Ma'aser Beheimah, it is referring to - animals that were born after Ellul and before Ellul, respectively.

(d)The Tana also rules that - one is forbidden to take Ma'aser from ...

1. ... cattle on sheep, or vice-versa, and on ...

2. ... Chadash on Yashan, or vice-versa.

2)

(a)Based on the previous ruling, we would have thought that one is not permitted to Ma'aser sheep on goats - which are subject to Kil'ayim, Kal-va'Chomer from Chadash on Yashan, which is forbidden even though they are not subject to Kil'ayim.

(b)We learn from the word "va'Tzon" (in the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ve'Chol Ma'asar Bakar va'Tzon") however, that one is - since "Tzon" incorporates both sheep and goats, rendering them one and the same species with regard to Ma'aser.

3)

(a)We suggest that our Mishnah, which includes animals in Chutz la'Aretz in the Din of Ma'aser Beheimah, cannot go like Rebbi Akiva, who says in a Beraisa that - one does not bring Ma'aser Beheimah animals of Chutz la'Aretz to Yerushalayim to go on the Mizbe'ach.

(b)He learns this from the words "eis Ma'asroseichem" (in the Pasuk in Re'ei "Vahaveisem Shamah Oloseichem ... ve'eis Ma'asroseichem") - which is written in the plural to compare Ma'aser Beheimah to Ma'aser Dagan. Consequently, since the latter does not apply in Chutz la'Aretz, the former should not apply either.

(c)We refute the above suggestion however - in that the fact that Rebbi Akiva holds that the animals under discussion do not go on the Mizbe'ach does not mean that Kedushas Ma'aser does not take effect on them.

(d)And this is evident from Rebbi Akiva himself - who cites the Pasuk "Vahaveisem Shamah ... " (which precludes the Ma'aser animals from the Mizbe'ach, but not from becoming Kadosh).

4)

(a)Despite the fact that animals from Chutz la'Aretz are not brought on the Mizbe'ach, it is necessary to say that Kedushas Ma'aser takes effect - to teach us they may only be eaten if they obtain a blemish.

(b)The owner (Kohen or Yisrael) eats Ma'aser Beheimah; in fact anyone who is Tahor may eat it.

(c)It is not necessary to give it to a Kohen - since there is no source to say that it is.

5)

(a)The problem we have, based on the ruling in our Mishnah, that Ma'aser Beheimah applies even in Chutz la'Aretz is - why it is not practiced nowadays.

(b)To answer the Kashya, we cite Rav Huna, who attributes it to a decree on account of Yasom - one of a number of irregular animals (which will be discussed later in the Perek) which are Patur from Ma'aser, and which we are afraid the owner might include in the flock that is being Ma'asered.

(c)We refute Rav Hunah's answer however - because why were the Chachamim then not afraid of the same thing in the time of the Beis-ha'Mikdash?

(d)We refute the refutation that it is possible to make an announcement (to preclude Yesomim from Ma'aser Beheimah) - because then it ought to apply nowadays as well for the same reason.

6)

(a)We finally attribute the fact that Ma'aser Beheimah does not apply nowadays - to Takalah ...

(b)... seeing as, once the animal is declared Ma'aser, the only thing to do is to wait for it to obtain a blemish, one may, whilst waiting for that to occur, come to work with it, or to use its shearings.

(c)The source for the Chashash of Takalah lies in a Beraisa which forbids declaring Hekdesh, Erech or Cherem nowadays (because of Takalah).

(d)The Beraisa says that if one did declare Hekdesh ...

1. ... fruit, clothes and vessels - one should let them rot.

2. ... money and metal vessels - one should dump them in the Yam ha'Melach.

(e)If one declared Hekdesh an animal, the Tana says Beheimah Te'aker - close the door in front of it and let it die.

7)

(a)The Chachamim did not negate B'chor too, on account of Takalah - since a B'chor (unlike Ma'aser, which only becomes Hekdesh when it is declared as such), is automatically Hekdesh the moment it is born.

(b)The reason that, to avoid Takalah, we do not sell the ears of the mother of a B'chor to a gentile is - because it is preferable to blemish the ears of the B'chor itself, before it is born, in accordance with the ruling of Rav Yehudah ...

(c)... since in that way, one avoids completely removing the Kedushah of the B'chor, depriving the Kohen of the B'chor (which one would do if one sold part of the mother to a Nochri, as we explained above in the first Perek).

8)

(a)One cannot also blemish the Ma'aser animal before it has been declared Ma'aser - because one cannot possibly know which animal will turn out to be Ma'aser.

(b)Neither is the owner permitted to lead the blemished animal to the pen in the tenth place - since the Torah writes in Bechukosai - "Lo Yevaker bein Tov la'Ra" (intimating that one is not allowed to choose which animal should be Ma'aser).

(c)Nor did the Chachamim institute that one blemishes one's entire flock in advance - because this will result in a shortage of animals from which to bring Korbanos when the Beis-ha'Mikdash is rebuilt (speedily in our days).

9)

(a)We are not, by the same token, afraid of the same problem, if we permit the owners of firstborn animals to blemish them - since it will be possible to take P'shutim (animals that are not Bechorim) for Korbanos.

(b)Nevertheless, we need to worry about blemishing one's flocks, despite the possibility of purchasing animals from others - since not only will there not be too many of those around, but in addition, the blemish of Dukin she'be'Ayin is common, so that animals available to use as a Korban, will be hard to come by.

10)

(a)The problem with our Mishnah, which precludes Ma'aser Beheimah from Kodshim is - that it is obvious, since Korbanos do not belong to the owner.

(b)We answer by establishing the Mishnah by Kodshim Kalim, according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, who holds that - Kodshim Kalim belong to the owner.

(c)He learns this from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with someone who swears that he did not receive a Pikadon and then admits to having sworn falsely) "Uma'alah Ma'al ba'Hashem ve'Kichesh ba'Amiso ... " - since "ba'Hashem" refers to the parts of a Shelamim that go to Hash-m, and '"ba'Amiso" to the parts that belong to the owner.

11)

(a)Despite the fact that the Mishnah is talking about Kodshim Kalim according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, one cannot Ma'aser them - because the Pasuk writes "Yih'yeh Kadosh", implying that it is not Kadosh yet.

(b)We then ask why we should not really need a Pasuk to reach us that - because if a more stringent Kedushah cannot take effect on a lighter one, how much more so the other way round.

(c)The reason that we do in fact, need a Pasuk to teach us that Ma'aser is not effective on Shelamim is because - whereas not every animal is due to go on the Mizbe'ach, every animal is due to be Ma'asered ...

(d)In which case we would have thought that - even after declaring an animal a Shelamim, the potential Kedushas Ma'aser remains.

12)

(a)Regarding a more stringent Kedushah not taking effect on a lighter one - the Mishnah in Temurah - forbids switching the Kedushah of both Kodshei Mizbe'ach and Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis from one Kedushah to another.

(b)When the Tana permits being Makdish it Hekdesh Iluy - he is referring to giving the Tovas Hana'ah that one has in Kodshei Mizbe'ach to Bedek ha'Bayis.

(c)If Ma'aser Beheimah were to take effect on Shelamim, despite the fact that the animal is Hekdesh anyway, and Ma'aser is not basically more stringent than Shelamim - it would mean that even if were to obtain a blemish, one would not be permitted to redeem it.

13)

(a)We would have thought that one is permitted to Ma'aser Chadash on Yashan and vice-versa - because if one can do so regarding lambs and kid-goats, which are subject to Kil'ayim, how much more so Chadash and Yashan, which are not.

(b)We refute this however, by citing the Pasuk in Re'ei "Aser Te'aser eis Kol Tevu'as Zar'echa", which is talking about Ma'aser Dagan, but which (by virtue of the double expression) - also hints at Ma'aser Beheimah.

(c)We now learn from the Hekesh between the two Ma'asros that - just as Ma'aser Dagan cannot be separated from produce of one year for produce of another year, so is the Din with Ma'aser Behemah.

(d)We know this Din with regard to Ma'aser Dagan - from the double expression (in the Pasuk in Re'ei) "Shanah Shanah".

(e)We do not also learn from Ma'aser Dagan the prohibition of separating Ma'aser from sheep and goats on each other - because the Torah uses the word "va'Tzon", which refers both to sheep and to goats (as we learned earlier).

14)

(a)The problem with the dual D'rashos currently under discussion is - how we know to restrict the Hekesh between Ma'aser Beheimah and Ma'aser Dagan to the Halachah of not separating from one year on another, and not to restrict it to the Halachah of separating from one species on another?

(b)Rava resolves the problem, based on the Torah's insertion of the word "Shanah" in the above-mentioned Pasuk - which teaches us that the Hekesh is confined to time.