1)

(a)A Zar who eats Bikurim - is Chayav Misah.

(b)According to Rava bar Ada Amar Rebbi Yitzchak, the Chiyuv Misah comes into effect - the moment the Bikurim enters the Azarah.

(c)Before that - he is guilty of stealing from the Kohanim.

(d)This follows the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer, who states in a Beraisa that if a batch of Bikurim is partly inside the Azarah and partly outside - then whatever is outside has the Din of Chulin and whatever is inside has the Din of Hekdesh.

2)

(a)We support Rav Sheishes, who considers the Hanachah crucial to the Mitzvah of Bikurim, but not the K'ri'ah, with a Beraisa. One of three things that Rebbi Yossi says there, concerns eating Ma'aser Sheini within the walls of Yerushalayim nowadays. This might be permitted - on the basis of the principle that the Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael is still intact (otherwise the produce would not be subject to Ma'asros in the first place).

(b)We learn that it is in fact not - from B'chor, which we know cannot be brought nowadays (as we will see shortly).

(c)We query the Limud from B'chor however - on the grounds that B'chor requires its blood to be sprinkled and its Emurin to be brought, on the Mizbe'ach (whereas Ma'aser does not).

(d)Since Rebbi Yossi cannot learn it from B'chor, he tries to learn it from Bikurim. The problem with that is - that Bikurim requires Hanachah (which Ma'aser does not).

3)

(a)So Rebbi Yossi concludes - by quoting the Pasuk in Re'ei "Ve'achalta Sham lifnei Hash-m Elokecha ... ", which compares Ma'aser to B'chor (and one cannot query a Hekesh).

(b)Rav Ashi rejects the proof (that K'ri'ah is not crucial from the fact that Rebbi Yossi omits K'ri'ah in his Pircha) - on the grounds that, even if it is not, we will need to explain why he did not mention it together with Hanachah (seeing as, when all's said and done, it is a Mitzvah which does not apply to Ma'aser).

(c)And the reason that Rebbi Yossi does not in fact, mention K'ri'ah in the Pircha is - because unlike Hanachah, which applies consistently to all cases of Bikurim, K'ri'ah does not apply to the fruit of a Ger, who cannot say "asher Nishba Hash-m La'avoseinu").

(d)After presenting the Pircha on the Limud from Bikurim, Rebbi Yossi does not then attempt to learn from a 'Mah ha'Tzad' from B'chor and Bikurim together (as one customarily does) - because he already knew that the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' itself was refutable, inasmuch as both B'chor and Bikurim require the Mizbe'ach one way or the other (whereas Ma'aser does not).

4)

(a)We question Rebbi Yossi, depending on whether the Kedushah of the first Beis-Hamikdash ceased with the Churban or not. We ask that, if ...

1. ... it did not - why one should not be able to bring a B'chor nowadays (based on the assumption that one can sacrifice nowadays, even though there is no Beis-Hamikdash, as we learned in Megilah).

2. ... it did - why we profess to know that one cannot bring a B'chor any more than one cannot eat Ma'aser Sheini (which we consider only a Safek).

(b)Even if the Kedushah of the Beis-Hamikdash ceased with the Churban, we nevertheless contend with the possibility of bringing a B'chor nowadays - in a case where the animal was Shechted, its blood sprinkled and the Emurin brought on the Mizbe'ach, already before the Churban.

(c)Ravina establishes Rebbi Yossi like the second side of the She'eilah, and he takes for granted that one cannot bring a B'chor nowadays (under the given circumstances) - because (based on the Pasuk in Korach) we compare eating the flesh of the animal to sprinkling its blood, which requires the Mizbe'ach.

5)

(a)The problem we have with then going on to learn Ma'aser Sheini from B'chor with a Hekesh (as we explained earlier) is the fact that - in the realm of Hekdesh, one cannot learn one Hekesh from another.

(b)We deal with ...

1. ... the problem initially - by pointing out that Ma'aser is Chulin (and in the realm of Chulin, one can learn a Hekesh from a Hekesh).

2. ... the problem even if, regarding 'Lameid min ha'Lameid' we go after the Melamed (the source [B'chor]) which is Hekdesh - by concluding that the blood and the flesh are considered one entity, and do not even require a Hekesh to compare them.

6)

(a)Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina explains that despite the fact that we already learned 'Ma'aser Sheini ve'Hekdesh she'Lo Nifdu' in the previous Mishnah, the Tana needs to repeat 'Kodshim Kalim u'Ma'aser Sheini Chutz le'Chomah' - because whereas the former case speaks about where either the Ma'aser or the person is Tamei and is eating it in Yerushalayim, the latter case speaks about where they are both Tahor and the person eats it outside Yerushalayim.

(b)According to Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, the word "be'Tamei" (in the Pasuk in Ki Savo 'Lo Bi'arti mimenu be'Tamei") teaches us that - one is forbidden to eat Ma'aser Sheini be'Tum'ah, irrespective of whether it is the man who is Tamei or the Ma'aser.

(c)From the Pasuk in Emor "Nefesh asher Tiga bo ve'Tam'ah ad ha'Erev, ve'Lo Yochal min ha'Kodshim" - we learn the Azharah for eating Ma'aser Sheini when one is Tamei.

(d)After Rashi commented 'Ha Rachatz Tahor, de'Taval ve'Alah Ochel be'Ma'aser' - he was Niftar (as he was discussing Taharah).

7)

(a)The problem with the Beraisa is - the source for not eating Ma'aser which became Tamei (when the person is Tahor).

(b)We ask this, even though the Beraisa itself goes on to answer it - because we interjected before having finished quoting the Beraisa.

8)

(a)Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael interprets the Pasuk (with regard to a B'chor Ba'al-Mum) "bi'She'arecha Tochlenu ha'Tamei ve'ha'Tahor" to mean that - even a Tahor and a Tamei person are permitted to eat it from the same dish (incorporating Tum'as ha'Guf and Tum'as Atzman [since the meat becomes Tamei when touched by the Tamei person]).

(b)The Chidush is that - it is permitted to render Tamei a B'chor animal that has been redeemed ...

(c)... despite the restrictions pertaining to it (that it may not be shorn, its milk is forbidden and it may not be fed to dogs ...

(d)... since they are not the result of any remaining Kedushah.

(e)This now reflects on the Pasuk there "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha Ma'asar Degancha ... " - inasmuch as (based on the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "bi'She'arecha" "bi'She'arecha"), whatever is permitted by the former (B'chor Ba'al-Mum), is prohibited by the latter (Tum'as Atzman by Ma'aser).

9)

(a)One can generally redeem Ma'aser Sheini - if one is far from Yerushalayim, and the load is too much to carry, as the Pasuk writes in Re'ei "Ki Lo Suchal Se'eiso".

(b)We realize that it is also possible to redeem Ma'aser Sheini that became Tamei even in Yerushalayim - because our Mishnah (which, as we just established, is speaking about this very case) says 'Ma'aser Sheini she'Lo Nifdeh' (implying that if it was redeemed, one would be permitted to eat it).

(c)Based on the Pasuk in Mikeitz "Vayisa *Mas'os* me'es Panav" (in connection with the portions that Yosef gave his brothers), Rebbi Elazar explain the Pasuk "ki Lo Suchal *Se'eiso*" to mean that - one may also redeem Ma'aser Sheini, because one is unable to eat it (due to its state of Tum'ah).

(d)We learn from the Pasuk there "Ki Yirchak Mimcha ha'Makom Venasata ba'Kesef" - that, on the other hand, one cannot redeem Ma'aser Sheini Tahor in Yerushalayim.

10)

(a)Rebbi Bibi Amar Rebbi Asi also learns from the Pasuk "Ki Lo Suchal Se'eiso" (in spite of the Pasuk "Ki Yirchak Mimcha ha'Makom") that - even if one is just one step from Yerushalayim (and has difficulty in carrying the Ma'aser Sheini into Yerushalayim, one may redeem it (even though one is not really far from Yerushalayim).

(b)We did indeed just use the very same Pasuk to teach us Rebbi Elazar's D'rashah (that one can redeem Ma'aser Sheini that became Tamei, even in Yerushalayim) - but then the Torah could have written "Ki Lo Suchal Achlo" ("Se'eiso" implies the current D'rashah).

(c)On the other hand, had the Pasuk just come for the current D'rashah, and not for that of Rebbi Elazar - it should have written "Ki Lo Suchal Litlo" ("Se'eiso"), therefore implying both.

11)

(a)Rav Chanina and Rav Hoshaya sat in the gateway of Yerushalayim and asked a She'eilah. They first said that if someone is carrying his Ma'aser Sheini in front of him, and it is already inside the city, but he is still outside - the Ma'aser is considered inside (and he may no longer redeem it).

(b)Their She'eilah was - in a case where he is inside and the Ma'aser, outside.

(c)When, to resolve the She'eilah, a certain old man from the Beis-Hamedrash of Rebbi Shimon said "Ki Yirchak Mimcha" , 'mi'Milu'acha', he meant - that it is only if all of the person (including the Ma'aser that he is carrying) is outside, that he is still permitted to redeem the Ma'aser, but not if either he or the Ma'aser is inside.

(d)Rav Papa asked what the Din will be if he is inside, and the Ma'aser, which is hanging on a long pole that he is holding on his shoulder, is still outside The Din here might differ from the previous case - because since the Ma'aser itself is not actually on his shoulder, it might not be considered 'Milu'o', and he might still be able to redeem it, as if it was lying on the ground.

(e)The outcome of the She'eilah is - 'Teiku' ('Tishbi yearetz Kushyos ve'Ibayos').

12)

(a)Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan learns from the two Pesukim "Lifnei Hash-m Elokecha Tochlenu" and "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha" that - it is only when the Ma'aser Sheini can be eaten (once it is inside Yerushalayim) that one is Chayav for eating it outside the walls.

(b)Consequently, when our Mishnah says 'Ma'aser Sheini Chutz le'Chomah', it means that - he ate it after it had entered Yerushalayim and been taken out again.

13)

(a)Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa rules that a Kohen who has a fig of Tevel must designate Terumah 'next to its stalk'. The Mishnah in D'mai, which permits designating Terumah without specifying its exact location - holds that it is not necessary to specifically recognize the remaining Chulin, whereas Rebbi Yossi holds that it is ('Shirehah Nikarin').

(b)He concludes there that if he also designates Ma'aser Rishon on the north side and Ma'aser Sheini on the south side, assuming he is in Yerushalayim, or Ma'aser Ani even assuming he is elsewhere, he nevertheless receives Malkos. He could avoid that - by separating Terumas Ma'aser from the Ma'aser Rishon.

(c)He does not receive Malkos for eating Terumah - because a Kohen is permitted to eat Terumah.

(d)If he was a Yisrael however - he would be subject to an additional set of Malkos for eating Terumah.

14)

(a)Rebbi Yossi specifically refers to 'Ma'aser Sheini in Yerushalayim'. Outside Yerushalayim - they would receive a third sets of Malkos for eating Ma'aser Sheini outside the walls of Yerusalayim.

(b)We reconcile this with Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan (who absolves a person from Malkos for eating Ma'aser before the Ma'aser has entered Yerushalayim) - by establishing Rebbi Yossi where the Ma'aser entered Yerushalayim and was taken out again (like we explained our Mishnah).

15)

(a)The problem with the Beraisa is - what Rebbi Yossi is then coming to teach us?

(b)And we reply 'K'gon de'Aylinhu be'Tivlaihu', which means that - the Ma'aser itself was not taken into Yerushalayim, only in the form of Tevel ...

(c)... and Rebbi Yossi is coming to teach us the principle - 'Matnos she'Lo Hurmu ke'Mi she'Hurmu Damyan' (We consider the Matanos contained in Tevel, to be in existence as if they have been separated).