(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________
THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
________________________________________________________________
Bava Metzia 090: Bal Tachsom with Ma'aser Sheni (according to Rashi)
Shlomo Wilamowsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked:
Rashi at the beginning of the sugya learns that the reason that bal tachsom
doesn't apply to trumah & maaser is because normally one is not mafrish
prior to miroach, and therefore the Torah did not include the unusual case
in the prohibition.
But if thats the reason, what difference does it make later in the sugya
when the Gemara differentiates between maaser rishon and sheni. Regardless
of whether its mamon govoah or mamon hedyot, it still should not be
included in the prohibition of bal tachsom because people are usually not
mafrish prior to threshing?
Shlomo Wilamowsky, Lawrence, NY
----------------------------------------------
The Kollel replies:
Excellent question.
Tosfos asks that according to the reasoning of Rashi, not only should the
Terumah be Patur but also the Chulin which remains after Terumah is
separated should be Patur, for one does not normally separate Terumah (and
create Chulin) before Miro'ach. To answer Rashi we must explain that the
fact that it is not the normally separated before Miro'ach is not the
*reason* that this produce is exempt from Lo Sachsom. Rather it is the
source in the Torah for deriving the Halachah. The Gemara learns that
Matanos are Patur from Lo Sachsom because generally there are no Matanos
around at the time of Dishah, and therefore the verse which says "Disho"
(referring to what is normally present at the time of Dishah) is not
referring to Matanos.
(It does not exclude Chulin, since there is no logical justification for
exempting that from Lo Sachsom. It is more reasonable to assume that the
Torah wrote b'Disho simply to exempt *Matanos*, because of their Kedushah,
from Lo Sachsom -MK.)
If Ma'aser Sheni is Mamon Hedyot, it would be like Chulin, which is not
excluded from b'Disho.
(You might wonder why Tosfos, who obviously did not accept the above
answer, did not ask your question on Rashi. It would seem that Tosfos is
generalizing your question by asking from *all* Chulin that is left after
the Terumah is separated, and not just from the Ma'aser Sheni that is left
-- after all, if Ma'aser Sheni is Mamon Hedyot, it is basically Chulin -MK.)
D. Zupnik
M. Kornfeld
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message:
unsubscribe daf-discuss
