Previous daf

1)

(a) The Mishnah in Kidushin permits sending a gentile a thigh with the sciatic nerve still attached.
Why are we not afraid that a Jew who witnesses it, and who assumes that his fellow-Jew will have removed the sciatic nerve, will purchase the thigh from the gentile, and eat it - sciatic nerve and all?

(b) In any event, it is clear that the sciatic nerve is Mutar be'Hana'ah. How will Rebbi Avahu explain this, in view of the fact that the Torah writes in Vayishlach "Al Ken Lo *Yochlu* Benei Yisrael es Gid ha'Nasheh"?

(c) What is the problem with this answer according to those who hold 'Ein be'Gidin be'Nosen Ta'am'?

(d) How does the Gemara resolve this problem?

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, someone who eats the sciatic nerve of a non- Kasher animal receives two sets of Malkos.
Why is that?

(b) Rebbi Shimon exempts him from Malkos altogether.
Why should he not receive at least *one* set, for eating Gid ha'Nasheh?

(a) The Torah writes in Acharei-Mos "Kol Nefesh Mikem *Lo Sochlu* Dam". According to Rebbi Avahu, blood should therefore be Asur be'Hana'ah.
Why then does the Mishnah in Avodah-Zarah permit the excess blood of the Sin- offering to be sold to gardeners as fertilizer?

(b) How do we know that, when the Torah writes in Re'ei "Al ha'Aretz Tishpechenu ka'Mayim", it is comparing blood to regular water (from which one *may* derive benefit) and not to the water of Nisuch ha'Mayim (on Succos - from which one may *not*)?

(c) And how do we know that it is not comparing it to water that was poured out to Avodah-Zarah?

(d) According to Chizkiyah (in whose opinion "Lo Sochlu" does not incorporate an Isur Hana'ah), why does the Torah need to compare blood to water?

4)

(a) Why may one not give a piece of Ever min ha'Chai to a gentile?

(b) How do we know that Ever min ha'Chai is Mutar be'Hana'ah?

(c) According to Rebbi Avahu, why is it *not* Asur be'Hana'ah, seeing as the Torah writes in Re'ei "ve'Lo Sochal ha'Nefesh Im ha'Basar"?

(d) Chizkiyah argues that it is not *Ever min ha'Chai* that is being compared to *blood* (since, according to him, this is not necessary), but *blood* that is being compared to *Ever min ha'Chai*.
What does he mean by this? Which Halachah does he learn from this comparison?

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim ...

1. ... "ve'Lo Ye'achel es Besaro" (with regard to an ox that has to be stoned)?
2. ... "u'Ba'al ha'Shor Naki"?

(b) Why is this a Kashya even on Chizkiyah?

(c) How do they answer it?

(d) Why does the Isur Hana'ah on the skin require a special Pasuk? Why is it not included in the prohibition to derive benefit from the flesh?

(a) Other Tana'im learn from "u'Ba'al ha'Shor Naki" either that, if the goring ox is a Tam, the owner is not obligated to pay half of the Kofer (the value of the gored man or of the owner of the ox), or that if an ox gores a pregnant woman, and she loses the fetus, the owner of the ox is not obligated to pay. From where do they learn the prohibition of deriving benefit from the skin of an ox that has to be stoned (even if it was subsequently Shechted)?

(b) What does the previous Tana do with "*es* Besaro"?

(c) What caused Shimon ha'Amsuni to withdraw all the Derashos he made from every 'es' in the Torah?

(d) How did he justify this?

8)

(a) What do we learn from "va'Araltem Orlaso ... *Arelim*"?

(b) Considering that the Torah writes "Lo Ye'achel", why is this necessary?

(c) Then why does the Torah write "Lachem"?

(d) What is the basis of the Machlokes between the Tana Kama (who *incorporates* a public tree in the Din of Orlah from "Lachem", and Rebbi Yehudah, who *precludes* it from "Lachem"?