Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) MISHNAH: CASES OF NEDARIM

(a) Statements such as "This person is not as Chullin, that I should eat from his"; that he is not kosher, pure, or Tahor; that he is Tamei, Nosar, or Pigul, are binding.
(b) Rating it as a lamb, animal corral, wood for the Mizbeyach, fire of the Mizbeyach, the Mizbeyach itself, the Heichal, Jerusalem, or any of the equipment for the Mizbeyach, is effective, even though he did not mention Korban.
(c) (R. Yehudah) If said that it is as Jerusalem, it is meaningless.

(a) The Mishnah was initially understood to mean that he means "You are not as Chullin but rather as a Korban."
(b) The Mishnah therefore cannot be following R. Meir, as he does not hold that we can deduce the positive corollary from the negative statement:

1. (R. Meir) A condition is only valid if it states both outcomes, as with that of the Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven.

(c) Question: Yet if the Mishnah follows R. Yehudah, there is a problem with the latter part, which cites his view, indicating that the earlier part did not follow him!?
(d) Answer: It all follows R. Yehudah; the latter part should be read, "The former laws are so because R. Yehudah holds thus."
(e) Question: We see that R. Yehudah would not hold that it is binding even he said that it is LIKE Jerusalem:

1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah) If someone prohibits something "like Jerusalem" it is meaningless, until he mentions something that is sacrificed in Jerusalem.

(f) Answer: It all follows R. Yehudah, but there is a dispute between Tanna'im as to R. Yehudah's opinion.

1. (Beraisa) If someone said "Chullin," "The Chullin," or "Like Chullin," whether he then said "that I should eat of yours" or "that I should not eat of yours," it is not binding.
2. If he said "LeChullin, I am eating of yours," it is binding.
3. If he said "LeChullin, I am not eating of yours," it is not binding.

(g) The first part follows R. Meir, who holds that we cannot deduce the positive from the negative.
(h) Question: The latter part cannot be following R. Meir:

1. (Mishnah - R. Meir) If he says "LeKorban, I am not eating of yours," it is binding.
2. Question: How can his saying that what he does not eat is not a Korban result in his meaning that what he does eat is a Korban - surely R. Meir holds that you cannot deduce the positive from the negative?
3. Answer (R. Aba): He means, "You are as a Korban, and therefore I am not eating of yours."
4. Here too, he means, "You are not as Chullin, and therefore I am not eating of yours" and it should be binding!

(i) Answer: That Tanna agrees with R. Meir in one aspect and argues in another:

1. He agrees that we cannot deduce a positive from a negative.
2. He disagrees that we can interpret his "Le-" to mean "You are as this, and therefore etc."

(j) Answer #2 (R. Ashi): We can interpret it thus when he said "La"; but in the Beraisa he said "Le-", which means "This is not as Chullin - that which I am not eating." (It is therefore permitted because R. Meir does not deduce the positive corollary.)

(a) Question (Rami bar Chama): If someone prohibits something "like the flesh of a Shelamim after Zerikah," is it binding?

1. If he said it in those words, then the Hatfasah is on a permissible item.
2. But if he had a piece of meat and a piece of such a Shelamim, and said "this is as this," is the Hatfasah on the prohibited essence of it (a Korban) or the permissible aspect (that it is after Zerikah)?