KIDUSHIN 56 (6 Kislev) - Dedicated in honor of the Yahrzeit of Eliezer ben Reb Shraga Feivel Marmorstein, by his nephew, Mr. David Kornfeld, who Mr. Marmorstein raised like his own child after the Holocaust.

1)

BUYING ANIMALS WITH MA'OS MA'ASER

(a)

(Beraisa): We may not buy animals with coins used to redeem Ma'aser Sheni.

(b)

If one bought b'Shogeg (unaware that the coins are of Ma'aser), the sale is undone (he gets back his money, and the seller gets back the animal);

1.

If one bought b'Mezid, he must bring the animal to Yerushalayim and eat it there (like Ma'aser, i.e. in Taharah).

2.

Rebbi Yehudah says, this (Mezid) is when he intended to buy a Shelamim. If he intended to spend the money like Chulin (to buy a Chulin animal), whether he was Shogeg (did not know that they are Ma'os Ma'aser) or Mezid, the sale is undone.

(c)

Contradiction (Mishnah (52b) - Rebbi Yehudah): If he was Mezid, she is Mekudeshes. (Kidushin is like intent to spend the money like Chulin!)

(d)

Answer #1 (R. Elazar): A woman knows that Ma'os Ma'aser are not profaned through acquiring her. She intends to consume (food bought with) the money in Yerushalayim. (Therefore, there is no reason to fine.)

(e)

Objection (R. Yirmiyah): One knows that Ma'os Ma'aser cannot be profaned through buying a Tamei animal, slaves or land (yet we fine)!

1.

(Mishnah): One may not buy a Tamei animal, slaves or land with Ma'os Ma'aser, even in Yerushalayim;

2.

If he bought, he must set aside money equal to what he paid and consume it like Ma'aser. (According to R. Elazar, this should not be needed, for the seller will treat the money with Kedushas Ma'aser!)

(f)

Answer #2 (R. Yirmiyah): Most people do not know that Ma'aser money cannot be profaned through acquiring a wife or a Tamei animal;

1.

The Mishnah (that a woman is Mekudeshes through Ma'aser money) discusses a learned woman who knows the Halachah.

(g)

Contradiction (Mishnah): If he bought, he must set aside money and consume it like Ma'aser.

1.

We should say that the sale is undone (like in the Beraisa)!

(h)

Answer (Shmuel): The case is, the seller fled.

56b----------------------------------------56b

(i)

Inference: If the seller were around, we would fine him (i.e. undo the sale).

(j)

Question: It is more reasonable to fine the buyer. Even if the seller is around, the buyer should set aside money and consume it like Ma'aser!

(k)

Answer: A thief would not steal if people would not buy stolen property (the buyer deserves to be fined).

(l)

Question: If the thief would not steal, people could not buy from him (we should fine the thief)!

(m)

Answer: They are both at fault. We fine the one holding the stolen property.

2)

THINGS ONE MAY NOT BENEFIT FROM

(a)

(Mishnah): If one was Mekadesh a woman with any of the following, she is not Mekudeshes:

1.

Orlah; Kil'ei ha'Kerem (crossbreeds in a vineyard); Shor ha'Niskal (an ox sentenced to be stoned for killing someone or bestiality); Eglah Arufah (a calf beheaded to atone for a murder); birds used for Taharas Metzora (one is slaughtered, and one is sent away); the hair of a Nazir; a firstborn donkey; meat cooked with milk; Chulin that was slaughtered in the Mikdash.

(b)

If he sold any of these and was Mekadesh with the money, she is Mekudeshes.

(c)

(Gemara) Question: What is the source that Orlah is Asur b'Hana'ah (one may not benefit from it)?

(d)

Answer (Beraisa): Had the Torah said "Areilim you will not eat", this would imply that one may benefit from Orlah;

1.

Rather, it says "v'Areltim Orlaso" to forbid benefit from it. One may not dye with it or fuel a lamp with it.

(e)

(Mishnah): Kil'ei ha'Kerem.

(f)

Question: What is the source that Kil'ei ha'Kerem is Asur b'Hana'ah?

(g)

Answer #1 (Chizkiyah): We read "Pen Tukdash" like 'Pen Tukad Esh (lest it be burned).'

(h)

Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): The verse means 'lest it become Kodesh.'

(i)

Objection: If so, if it is sold, the Isur should transfer to the money (and the Kilayim should become permitted), just like Kodesh!

1.

Rather, we must learn like Chizkiyah.

3)

SHOR HA'NISKAL IS ASUR B'HANA'AH

(a)

(Mishnah): Shor ha'Niskal.

(b)

Question: What is the source that it is Asur b'Hana'ah?

(c)

Answer (Beraisa #1): "You will stone the ox" - since it is a Neveilah, one may not eat it;

1.

"You will not eat its meat" forbids eating it even if it was slaughtered.

2.

Question: What is the source that one may not benefit from it?

3.

Answer (Ben Zoma): "The owner is Naki" - he is like one who was wiped clean of his property, and gets no benefit from them.

(d)

Question: What is the source that "you will not eat its meat" applies when it was slaughtered? Perhaps when it is slaughtered, it may be eaten, and the verse discusses when it was stoned, like R. Avahu taught!

1.

(R. Avahu): Whenever the Torah says "it will not be eaten" or "do not eat", this also forbids benefit, unless the Torah permits benefit, like it did regarding a Neveilah!

(e)

Answer #1: R. Avahu's law applies only when "do not eat" teaches that it may not be eaten. Here, we already know that it may not be eaten, for it must be stoned (and becomes a Neveilah).

1.

Had the verse come to forbid benefit, it would have said "do not benefit"(since we already know it may not be eaten).

(f)

Answer #2: Had it come to forbid benefit, it would have said only "it will not be eaten";

1.

"Its meat" is extra, to forbid eating it even if it was slaughtered (like regular meat).

(g)

Question (Mar Zutra): Granted, we learn that even if it was slaughtered, it may not be eaten. Perhaps this is only if it was slaughtered with a sharp stone (which is like stoning), but the verse does not discuss if it was slaughtered with a knife!

(h)

Answer: The Torah did not say that slaughter must be with a knife. (Therefore, slaughter with a stone is also considered slaughter, not stoning.)

1.

(Beraisa): Anything (sharp) may be used to slaughter, e.g. a rock, glass, a reed...

(i)

Question: Since "it will not be eaten" forbids eating or benefit from it, what do we learn from "the owner is clean"?

(j)

Answer: This forbids benefit from the skin;

1.

One might have thought that "its meat will not be eaten", but one may benefit from the skin. "The owner is clean" teaches that this is not so.

(k)

Question: Other Tana'im (Bava Kama 41) use "the owner is clean" to exempt the owner of a Tam (an animal not established to gore) from paying even half Kofer (ransom, if it killed a person), and the owner of even a Mu'ad (established gorer) from Demei Vlados (paying for fetuses it caused to be aborted);

1.

What is their source to forbid benefit from the skin?

(l)

Answer: "(You will not eat) Es Besaro" includes what is secondary to the meat, i.e. the skin.

1.

The Tana'im of Beraisa #1 learn this from "the owner is clean." They do not expound "Es".

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF