Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Meir learns from the T'nai of the B'nei Gad and the B'nei Re'uven that every stipulation requires a T'nai Kaful (a double condition). The underlying reason for that is - because he holds 'mi'Ch'lal La'av *I* Atah Shomei'a Hen' (and vice-versa) meaning that we do not infer a 'Yes' under one set of circumstances, from a 'No' under the opposite set (i.e. everything must be said explicitly).

(b) That precludes him from being the author of our Mishnah - where 'la'Chulin Lo Ochal Lach' is valid by inference, as we explained earlier.

(c) Rebbi Meir agrees - that a T'nai Kaful is not required by Isurin (and it is only by Mamon that he requires it).

(d) Nevertheless, he cannot be the author of our Mishnah, which speaks about Nedarim, which is an Isur - because Nedarim incorporate Mamon too, since a Neder is only effective on an object, as we explained earlier.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah argues with Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa in Gitin - where he says that when someone divorces his wife because she made Nedarim, he does not require a T'nai Kaful (to add that, had she not made Nedarim, he would not divorce her).

(b) Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel also argues with Rebbi Meir. Nevertheless, we prefer to establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah - because his name already appears there.

(c) Our Sugya opens with the statement 'Savruhah Mai la'Chulin, Lo Chulin' - which we would normally interpret to be a 'Havah Amina' (an initial contention), from which we will later retract. But that is not the case here. *This* initial contention remains intact throughout the Sugya.

(a) We just established the Reisha of our Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah. We reconcile this with the fact that he is the author of the Seifa, too - by establishing the entire Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah, and the Seifa merely comes to clarify the Reisha (' ... Divrei Rebbi Yehudah, she'Rebbi Yehudah Omer, ha'Omer Yerushalayim, Lo Amar K'lum').

(b) The author of the rest of that section of Mishnah 'ke'Imra', 'ke'Dirim', 'ke'Eitzim ... ' - must also be Rebbi Yehudah, because 'ke'Imra', 'ke'Dirim', 'ke'Eitzim ... ' have exactly the same Din as ki'Yerushalayim.

(c) Our Mishnah and the Beraisa which quotes Rebbi Yehudah as saying 'ha'Omer ki'Yerushalayim, Lo Amar K'lum ad she'Yidor be'Davar ha'Kareiv bi'Yerushalayim' - are in conflict; it is in fact, a Machlokes Tana'im as to what Rebbi Yehudah holds.

(d) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether 'ki'Yerushalayim' refers to the Korbanos in Yerushalayim (the Tana of our Mishnah), or whether it refers to the wood and the stones of its buildings (the Tana of the Beraisa).

4)

(a) It is obvious that if someone says 'Chulin, ha'Chulin or ke'Chulin she'Ochal Lach' that this is not a Neder. Neither is 'Chulin ... she'Lo Ochal Lach' (despite the inference 'she'Ochal Lach, Korban') - because the author of this Beraisa is Rebbi Meir, who holds 'mi'Ch'lal La'av *I* Ata Shomei'a Hen'.

(b) The problem with the Seifa 'la'Chulin she'Ochal Lach, Asur' is - that it would appear to be Asur only because of 'mi'Ch'lal La'av ... ', with which Rebbi Meir does not agree.

(c) We cannot answer that this is not really a case of 'mi'Ch'lal La'av Ata Shomei'a Hen', because 'Lo Chulin' is synonymous with 'Korban' - seeing as we established the previous Mishnah (which also uses this wording) like Rebbi Yehudah (and not like Rebbi Meir) because he holds 'mi'Ch'lal La'av Ata Shomei'a Hen'.

(d) The most convenient solution to this Kashya would be - to erase this section from the Beraisa.

6)

(a) In a Mishnah later, Rebbi Meir validates 'la'Korban Lo Ochal Lach'. Bearing in mind that Rebbi holds 'mi'Ch'lal La'av *I* Ata Shomei'a Hen', Rebbi Aba explains this statement to mean 'le'Korban Yehei, Lefichach Lo Ochal Lach'.

(b) Despite the fact that throughout the Sugya, we have assumed 'la'Chulin' to mean 'Lo Chulin', Rebbi Aba nevertheless explains Rebbi Meir in this way - because 'la'Chulin' is actually ambiguous; so whenever possible, we explain it in such a way that the Neder should take effect.

(c) The problem this presents on the Seifa of the Beraisa is - why the Tana then states there 'la'Chulin (or 'la'Chalin) Lo Ochal Lach, Mutar'? Why can we not explain that case too, like Rebbi Aba (in order to conform with the Mishnah there)?

(d) We only ask from Rebbi Aba on the Beraisa, and not on our Mishnah 'la'Korban she'Ochal Lach', which we established categorically not like Rebbi Meir - because, whereas 'Lo Ochal Lach, Mutar' lends itself to this explanation, 'she'Ochal Lach' does not.

(a) We could answer that the Tana of our Beraisa agrees with Rebbi Meir regarding 'mi'Ch'lal La'av *I* Ata Shomei'a Hen', he disagrees with the Tana of the Mishnah (as explained by Rebbi Aba). According to him, 'la'Korban, Lo Ochal Lach' is no more a Neder than 'la'Chulin Lo Ochal Lach'. Rav Ashi however, reconciles the two - by differentiating between 'Lo Chulin' (which would be subject to Rebbi Aba's explanation) and 'la'Chulin', which is not (because it implies that it is not Chulin, but a Korban, in which case, it could only be valid if we were to apply the principle 'mi'Ch'lal La'av ... '). Note: This is Tosfos explanation, according to *our* text; the Ran has a different text and a different explanation.

(b) According to the Ra'avad, who reads 'Chalin', instead of 'Chulin' - if he would say *'le'Chalin* Lo Ochal Lach', we would explain it like Rebbi Aba, and the Neder would be valid. The Seifa of the Beraisa however, speaks when he said *'la'Chalin* Lo Ochal Lach', in which case, Rebbi Aba's explanation is not applicable.

(c) According to this explanation, we will have to read the middle case in the Beraisa 'le'Chalin she'Ochal Lach, Asur', and the Seifa 'la'Chalin Lo Ochal Lach, Mutar'. The Chidush in the former case will be - that even though he concluded his declaration with a lenient-sounding phrase, *the Neder is valid*; and in the latter case - that even though he concluded with a stringent-sounding one, it is *not*.

9)

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech, ve'ha'Basar Tochel" - that once the blood of a Korban has been sprinkled, the flesh becomes permitted to the owner (or to the Cohen).

(b) We therefore refute the initial version of Rami bar Chama's She'eilah (what will be the Din if someone declares 'Harei Alai ki'B'sar Zivchei Sh'lamim le'Achar Z'rikas Damim') - on the grounds of what we just said: that, seeing as he was Matfis on a Davar ha'Mutar, his Neder is invalid, dispensing with the She'eilah.

(c) The correct version of Rami bar Chama's She'eilah - is regarding a person who has before him a piece of Sh'lamim meat after the Z'rikas Damim and a piece of Chulin, and who then says 'Zeh ka'Zeh'.

(d) The She'eilah is - whether he is being Matfis on the Korban in its current state (when it is a Davar ha'Mutar), or in original state (when it was a Davar ha'Asur).

(a) If he was Matfis a Davar Mutar (once the Z'rikah has taken place), his Neder is not valid on account of the fact that the flesh of the Korban remains forbidden to Temei'im, and because of the Chazeh ve'Shok, which remain forbidden to Zarim - because these are not forbidden directly through his original Neder (which forbade the entire animal to anyone before its Sh'chitah), but due to the subsequent Isurim placed on it by the Torah'. Consequently, it is a 'Davar ha'Asur' and not a 'Davar ha'Nadur', and the Neder is not valid.

(b) The common denominator between someone who is Matfis ... 1. the T'rumas Lachmei Todah and 2. the meat of a Bechor (both after the Z'rikas Damim); 3. Chalas Aharon or his Terumah - is that, like the previous case, they are all 'Davar ha'Asur' and not 'Davar ha'Nadur'.