1) MAY “LACHMEI TODAH” BE BROUGHT FROM “MA’ASER SHENI”

(a) (R. Zeira): He may not use (for Lachmei Todah) wheat of Ma’aser Sheni, he may use wheat bought with Ma’aser money.
(b) R. Yirmeyah: He may not use even wheat bought with Ma’aser money! I will explain both of our opinions:
1. You understand, we learn Todah from Shelamim (that it may come from Ma’aser; Rashi – that it may not come from Ma’aser wheat), which is learned from a Gezerah Shavah “Sham-Sham” from Ma’aser;
i. Just like Shelamim is not itself Ma’aser, also Todah – but wheat bought from Ma’aser money may be used.
2. I agree that Todah is learned from Shelamim, which is learned from Ma’aser;
i. (However, I say) just like Shelamim does not come from a species subject to Ma’aser, also Todah (and its bread, i.e. one may not use wheat bought from Ma’aser money. Loaves bought from Ma’aser (Rashi Kesav Yad – l’Shem Todah) may be used.)
2) GIVING “KEDUSHAS SHELAMIM” TO “MA’ASER SHENI”
(a) (R. Ami): If one is Matfis Ma’aser Sheni for Shelamim (is Makdish it with Kedushas Shelamim), it does not take effect.
(b) Question: What is the reason?
(c) Answer: Kedushas Shelamim is not strong enough to be Chal (take effect) on Kedushas Ma’aser.
(d) Question (Mishnah): If one used Ma’aser money to buy a Chayah for a Shelamim, or a Behemah to eat like Chulin, (this is improper, therefore) the skin does not become Chulin.
1. Inference: The skin receives Kedushas Shelamim!
(e) Answer: No, it means, the animal is not Nitfas (bi’Kdushas Shelamim) in a way that would cause the skin to become Chulin (like it does when one buys a Behemah for Shelamim or a Chayah for Chulin, even though it was bought with Ma’aser money and the skin will not be eaten. Rashi – alternatively, the animal is not Nitfas bi’Kdushas Shelamim, so it is inapplicable to discuss the skin becoming Chulin.)
(f) Question: What is the reason?
(g) Answer (Rabah): This is like buying an ox for plowing (Kedushas Ma’aser transfers to the entire ox, it must be sold to buy food to eat bi’Kedushas Ma’aser.)
(h) (R. Yochanan): If one is Matfis Ma’aser Sheni for Shelamim, it takes effect;
(i) (R. Elazar): It does not take effect.
(j) According to R. Yehudah, who says that a person owns his Ma’aser Sheni (it is Chulin, just there are restrictions), all agree that Kedushas Shelamim is strong enough to be Chal;
1. They argue according to R. Meir, who says that Ma’aser Sheni is Kodesh (a person does not own it, he just has permission to eat it);
2. Clearly, R. Elazar holds like R. Meir;
3. Even R. Yochanan’s law can be like R. Meir;
i. Version #1 (our text, Rashi Kesav Yad): Ma’aser is called Shelamim (it says “V’Achalta Sham (Shelamim)” – a Gezerah Shavah teaches that this refers to an animal bought with Ma’aser.)
ii. Version #2 (Rashi): Since Ma’aser can be (used to buy an animal to be) offered as Shelamim, it is Nitfas.
(k) Question (against R. Elazar – Beraisa): If one is Matfis Ma’aser Sheni for Shelamim, when he redeems it, he must add two fifths, one for Hekdesh (it gets Kedushas Shelamim), one for Ma’aser.
(l) Answer: This is like R. Yehudah.
3) “CHOVOS” MUST BE BROUGHT FROM “CHULIN”
(a) (Mishnah) Question: What is the source that if one said ‘Alai Todah’, he must bring it from Chulin?
(b) Answer: “V’Zavachta Pesach…Tzon *u’Vakar*”;
1. Objection: Pesach is not brought from cattle, only from flock (sheep or goats)!
2. Answer: This is extra, to equate (all other) Korbanos, that are brought from flock or cattle to Pesach:
i. Just like Pesach is a Chovah (obligation), it is brought only from Chulin, also all Chovos.
(c) Therefore, if one said ‘Alai Todah’ or ‘Alai Shelamim’, he is now obligated to bring it, he must bring it from Chulin.
(d) In every case, Nesachim must be from Chulin (Ma’aser cannot be used, for people do not eat them.)
(e) (Gemara): Question: What is the source that one must bring Pesach from Chulin?
(f) Answer #1 (Beraisa – R. Eliezer): We learn Pesach Doros (i.e. after entering Eretz Yisrael) from the Pesach offered in Mitzrayim;
1. Just as Pesach Mitzrayim was from Chulin (there was no Ma’aser (Rashi; Rambam – Hekdesh) at the time), also Pesach Doros.
2. R. Akiva: We cannot learn something possible (Pesach Doros, which (conceivably) could be brought from Ma’aser) from something impossible!
3. R. Eliezer: Indeed, we can learn possible from impossible.
4. R. Akiva: Blood and Eimurim of Pesach Doros must be offered on the Mizbe’ach, we cannot learn it from Pesach Mitzrayim, which was brought without a Mizbe’ach!
82b—————————————82b

5. R. Eliezer: “Va’Avadta Es ha’Avodah ha’Zos ba’Chodesh ha’Zeh” – all Avodah of this month is the same (Pesach Doros is like Pesach Mitzrayim.)
(g) Question: If R. Akiva maintains that we cannot learn possible from impossible, his first objection suffices;
1. If he retracted, and does not learn from Pesach Mitzrayim because there was no (Hakravah on a) Mizbe’ach, he should learn from Pesach brought in the Midbar (there was a Mizbe’ach, yet it was brought from Chulin, for there was no Ma’aser!)
(h) Answer: He asks according to R. Eliezer’s opinion;
1. According to me, we cannot learn possible from impossible;
2. You learn possible from impossible – still, you cannot learn from Pesach Mitzrayim because there was no Mizbe’ach! (Rashba – R. Akiva assumed that R. Eliezer learned specifically from Pesach Mitzrayim, for some reason he could not learn from Pesach Midbar.)
3. R. Eliezer answered, the Hekesh “Va’Avadta” overcomes this objection.
(i) Question: Why didn’t he answer that we learn from Pesach Midbar?
(j) Answer: He answered according to R. Akiva’s opinion:
1. According to me, we learn possible from impossible, Pesach Midbar answers your objection;
2. You do not learn possible from impossible – still, you should learn from Pesach Mitzrayim because of “Va’Avadta”!
(k) Question: Still, this is possible from impossible (why should R. Akiva agree to this?)
(l) Answer (Rav Sheshes): We learn from this that we do not challenge a Hekesh (even if it contradicts normal laws of expounding (Tosfos – if there is nothing else to learn from it).)
(m) Question (Rabanan of the Beis ha’Medrash): How can Pesach Doros, which was learned from a Hekesh, teach about other Korbanos through a Hekesh?
(n) Answer: “Va’Avadta” is not a Hekesh, rather, it teaches that all Pesachim are one matter, they have one law.
4) “KODSHEI KODOSHIM” ARE COMPARED TO EACH OTHER
(a) Question: What is R. Akiva’s source that Pesach must come from Chulin?
(b) (The answer to this question is on Daf 83A, he expounds a verse; the Gemara first explains how R. Eliezer expounds the verse.)
(c) (Shmuel citing R. Eliezer): “Zos ha’Torah la’Olah la’Minchah vela’Chatas vela’Asham vela’Milu’im ul’Zevach ha’Shelamim” – just like Olah requires a Kli, all these Korbanos require a Kli. (This verse teaches about all Korbanos, even Ofos – Tosfos Zevachim 2A.)
1. Question: Which Kli do we learn from this?
i. Suggestion: We learn that a Kli is needed for Kabalas Dam (like it says regarding the Olos offered before Matan Torah, “Va’Yasem ba’Aganos”.)
ii. Rejection: That verse also applies to the Shalmei Tzibur offered then (R. Eliezer should have said that we learn from Olah *and Shelamim*!)
2. Answer: Rather, we learn that a knife is needed for slaughter.
3. Question: What is the source that Olah require a knife for slaughter?
4. Answer: We learn from “Va’Yishlach Avraham Es Yado va’Yikach Es ha’Ma’acheles Lishchot Es Beno”.
i. “Va’Ya’alehu l’Olah Tachas Beno” – since the ram was an Olah in place of Yitzchak, it follows that he was also an Olah. (Sefas Emes asks why we do not learn from Hash-m’s initial command to offer Yitzchak as an Olah.)