Previous daf

1)

(a) The Mishnah in Eruvin permits using wine on behalf of a Nazir for an Eruv Techumin, and Terumah on behalf of a Yisrael - because both a Nazir and the owner of the Terumah are able to release their declaration through a Beis-Din, in which case they will both be able to drink the wine.

(b) Rebbi Avahu explains the fact that a Yisrael is permitted to derive benefit from Terumah (in spite of the Pasuk "ve'Chol Zar Lo *Yochal* Kodesh") - because the Torah also writes "Terumaschem", to permit it be'Hana'ah.

(c) And he explains the fact that a Nazir is permitted to derive benefit from wine, in spite of the Pasuk in Naso "me'Chartzanim ve'Ad Zag Lo Yochel" - because the Torah also writes "Nizro", to permit it be'Hana'ah.

(d) Rav Ashi Darshens "Gadel Pera Se'ar Rosho" - his hair is holy (i.e. forbidden), but not the wine. The Gemara refutes this on the grounds that the Pasuk does not write 'but not the wine'.

(a) 'Kotzer la'Shachas' - means that, in spite of the prohibition of harvesting the crops before the Omer, it is permitted to cut them as long as they are still grass (i.e. less than a third grown), because that is not called 'harvesting'. 'u'Ma'achil li'Beheimah' - means that one is permitted even to harvest the fully-grown crops for ones animals before the Omer.

(b) Rebbi Avahu explains the fact that Chadash is Mutar be'Hana'ah, in spite of the Pasuk "ve'Lechem ve'Kali ve'Charmel Lo *Sochlu* ad Etzem ha'Yom ha'Zeh" - because there too, the Torah writes "Ketzirchem" to permit Chadash be'Hana'ah.

(c) Acording to Chizkiyah, "Terumaschem" and "Ketzirchem" mean 'your Terumah' and 'your harvest' respectively. It is a manner of speech, and we do not learn anything special from there.

(a) Although the Torah writes "Lachem" by Sheratzim, to permit Sheratzim be'Hana'ah, it nevertheless also writes "ve'Sheketz *Yihyu* Lachem", to teach us that they retain their status of Isur, and it is forbidden to set out to trap them initially.

(b) Chizkiyah's source for his contention that "*Lo Ye'achel*" incorporates a prohibition to derive benefit - is the Pasuk by Sheratzim, which could have written "Lo Sochel", to teach us that they are Asur ba'Achilah, and Mutar be'Hana'ah. Why did it take the trouble to write "Lo Ye'achel" and then "Lachem"? - if not to teach us that "Lo Ye'achel" always incorporates an Isur Hana'ah.

5) The Rabbanan need an extra "Lecha" - to teach us that both yeast and Chametz are included in Bal Yera'ah and Bal Yimatzei. Nor would we have known one from the other, because yeast, on the one hand, is a stronger Chimutz than Chametz (since it makes others Chametz, too). and on the other hand, Chametz is edible, whereas yeast is not.

6)

(a) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learns from the Pasuk "Ye'aseh le'Chol Melachah" - that Chelev is Mutar be'Hana'ah for a Hedyot (an ordinary person) just like it is permitted for Hashem (e.g. to smear skins of Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis).

(b) We would otherwise have thought that, since it is Asur to eat, it is also Asur be'Hana'ah - unlike Hekdesh, which is Mutar to eat (Achilas Mizbei'ach), and which is therefore permitted for Bedek ha'Bayis to derive benefit from it.

(c) Rebbi Akiva learns from "Ye'aseh le'Chol Melachah" - that Chelev of Neveilah is not included in the Din of Neveilah, and is Tahor from Tum'as Neveilah. Consequently, it may be used without problems to rub on skins of Kodshim. But it is obvious to him that Chelev is Mutar be'Hana'ah.

(d) The Gemara initially explained that Rebbi Yossi Hagelili holds like Rebbi Avahu - that "Lo Sochlu" incorporates an Isur Hana'ah, in which case, he requires "le'Chol Melachah" to permit Hana'ah; whereas Rebbi Akiva holds like Chizkiyah - that "Lo Sochlu" is restricted to an Isur Achilah, in which case, no Pasuk is required to permit Hana'ah.

7)

(a) The Gemara concludes that, in fact, even Rebbi Akiva agrees that "Lo Sochlu" etc. incorporates the prohibition to derive benefit - nevertheless, he does not require a Pasuk to permit Chelev be'Hana'ah, because he holds that, when the Torah permitted Neveilah, Chelev and Gid ha'Nasheh were included in that Heter.

(b) According to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili - when the Torah permitted Neveilah, only the flesh was included in that Heter, but not Chelev and Gid ha'Nasheh, since they do not bear the title 'Neveilah'.

(c) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili may well permit Gid ha'Nasheh be'Hana'ah from a Kal va'Chomer from Chelev: if Chelev, which carries the penalty of Kares, is permitted, how much more so Gid ha'Nasheh, which is only an ordinary La'av.

(d) Rebbi Shimon who forbids Gid ha'Nasheh be'Hana'ah, rejects the Kal va'Chomer, on the grounds that Gid ha'Nasheh has a Chumra over Chelev - inasmuch as even the Gid ha'Nasheh of a Chayah is forbidden; whereas the Chelev of a Chayah is permitted. Rebbi Yossi will counter that by saying that we are talking about a Beheimah, not a Chayah, and by a Beheimah, the Kal va'Chomer is perfectly valid, since Chelev is definitely more stringent than Gid ha'Nasheh.

(a) The only practical ramifications of the Machlokes between Chizkiyah and Rebbi Avahu is Chulin that were Shechted in the Azarah, which are Asur be'Hana'ah mi'd'Oraysa according to Chizkiyah, but only mi'de'Rabbanan, according to Rebbi Avahu.

(b) According to Chizkiyah, we already know the Isur Hana'ah by Chametz and Shor ha'Niskal from the Lashon of "Lo Ye'achel". Consequently, he learns from "la'Kelev Tashlichun *Oso*" that one may not derive benefit from Chulin that were Shechted in the Azarah. Whereas Rebbi Avahu learns the Isur Hana'ah by Chametz and Shor ha'Niskal from "la'Kelev Tashlichun *Oso*". Consequently, he has no Pasuk to forbid Chulin that were Shechted in the Azarah, be'Hana'ah - so the Isur Hana'ah that pertains to them can only be mi'de'Rabbanan. Note: this entire explanation is confined to the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. See Sugya 21b. and 22a.

(a) 'All Isurin in the Torah' incorporates Chametz on Pesach and an ox that is due to be stoned.

(b) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi does not learn the Isur Hana'ah by all Isurin from "Lo Ye'achel" - because, according to him, "Lo Ye'achel" implies an Isur Achilah, but not an Isur Hana'ah.

(c) Neither does he learn it from "Lo Sochlu Kol Neveilah" (like Rebbi Meir) - because he holds like Rebbi Yehudah.

(d) Nor does he learn it from "la'Kelev Tashlichun *Oso*" (like Rebbi Yehudah) - because he uses it to infer that Chulin that were Shechted in the Azarah are forbidden (which in his opinion, are d'Oraysa).

(a) The simple explanation of "Kol Chatas Asher Yuva mi'Damah ... ba'Esh Tisaref" - is that if the blood of a regular Chatas (which is normally sprinkled 'outside' in the Azarah, is brought *inside* (into the Heichal), must be burnt.

(b) "ve'Hineh Soraf" refers to the Chatas of Nachshon (the first of the Princes to bring the inaugural sacrifices on Rosh Chodesh Nisan, after the Mishkan was completed. Moshe found that it had been burnt, and he asked Elazar and Isamar why that was so, seeing as the blood had not been brought into the Heichal, implying that, if it had, he would have had no problem with its being burned.

(c) So Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi learns from "ba'Esh Tisaref" (which is not now needed for itself) - to teach us that all Isurin in the Torah are Asur be'Hana'ah.

(d) Even though "ba'Esh Tisaref" is referring to the prohibition of eating Kodshim - we apply the principle of 'Im Eino Inyan' ... A word or a phrase in the Torah that is not needed in the context where it appears, is used in another context where it is needed.

Next daf