Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) "MALKUS" FOR SPEAKING

(a) (Mishnah): R. Akiva: We never find that someone brings a sacrifice for speaking!
(b) Question: But R. Akiva himself holds that one who curses Hash-m brings a sacrifice!
(c) Answer: He means, we never find someone who creates a prohibition (that entails a sacrifice) through speech;

1. There, the sacrifice is on account of his sin.

(d) Question: The prohibitions of Nezirus come through speech, and they entail a sacrifice!
(e) Answer: There, the sacrifice is not for transgressing the prohibitions, rather to (end the Nezirus and) permit him to drink wine.
(f) Question: One creates Hekdesh through speech, and it entails a sacrifice!
(g) Answer: R. Akiva refers to prohibitions one creates on himself;

1. Hekdesh is forbidden to everyone.

(h) Question: Konamos is a prohibition on himself!
(i) Answer: He holds that Me'ilah (and therefore sacrifices) do not apply to Konamos.
(j) (Rava): R. Akiva and Chachamim argue when he does not specify, but if he specifies 'I will not eat any amount', (all agree that) he is liable for any amount.

1. By specifying, he gives importance to any amount, just like a creation.

(k) (Rava): R. Akiva and Chachamim argue when he swears 'I will not eat';

1. But if he swore 'I will not taste', he is liable for any amount.
2. Objection: This is obvious!
3. Answer: One might have thought, 'tasting' refers to eating (i.e. an olive's worth), as people commonly say - Rava teaches, this is not so

(a) (Rav Papa): R. Akiva and Chachamim only argue regarding Shevu'os, but all agree that regarding Konamos, one is liable for any amount.
(b) Question: Why is this
(c) Answer: Konamos is also like specifying any amount, since he does not mention eating.
(d) Question (Beraisa): (If one eats less than a Shi'ur from each of) two Konamos, the amounts join up (to the quantity for liability); two Shevu'os do not join up;

1. R. Meir says, Konamos have the same law as Shevu'os.
2. If one is liable for any amount regarding Konamos, there is no need to join up!

(e) Answer #1: The case is, he mentioned 'eating' in each Konam (therefore, he is only liable for an olive's worth).
(f) Objection: If so, why do they join up? He did not *eat* (i.e. an olive's worth) from either!
(g) Answer #2: The case is, he said 'Eating from both of these is (forbidden) upon me like Konam (i.e. a sacrifice)'.

1. Question: If so, in the corresponding case of Shevu'os he said 'I swear that I will not eat from both of them' - why don't they join up?
2. Answer (Rav Pinchus): Because oaths are separate regarding Chatas offerings (one brings a sacrifice for each oath violated, even if he did not remember in between), they do not join.
3. Question: Why does R. Meir say that Konamos have the same law as Shevu'os?

i. Rav Pinchus' law would explain why Shevu'os do not join, but why don't Konamos join (even according to the opinion that there is Me'ilah regarding Konamos, they are not separate regarding Asham offerings)?

4. Correction: Rather, R. Meir says that Shevu'os have the same law as Konamos (they join up), he does not agree with Rav Pinchus.

(h) Answer #3 (Ravina): Rav Papa's law is only regarding lashes, the Beraisa only speaks regarding a sacrifice.
(i) Question: This implies that Chachamim hold that (the sacrifice for) Me'ilah applies to Konamos, in opposition to a Beraisa!

1. (Beraisa - R. Meir): If Reuven said 'This loaf is Hekdesh', if he or anyone else eats it, they transgress Me'ilah; therefore, it can be redeemed;

i. If he said 'This loaf is Hekdesh upon me', only he transgresses Me'ilah if he eats it; therefore, it cannot be redeemed;

ii. Chachamim say, there is no Me'ilah for benefit from Konamos, no matter who eats it.

(j) Answer: The opinions must be switched:

1. R. Meir says, there is no Me'ilah for benefit from Konamos, no matter who eats it.
2. Chachamim say, only he transgresses Me'ilah if he eats it.

(k) Question: Why does R. Meir say that Konamos do not join - this implies that Me'ilah applies to them!
(l) Answer: He speaks according to Chachamim.

1. According to me, Me'ilah does not apply to Konamos;
2. According to you; it applies - but you should admit that Konamos are like Shevu'os (they do not join).
3. Chachamim argue: Shevu'os do not join, for Rav Pinchus' reason, but Konamos join.

(m) (Rava): If one swore 'I will not eat' and he ate dirt, he is exempt.
(n) Question (Rava): If one swore 'I will not eat dirt', how much is he liable for? (According to Chachamim, but surely R. Akiva obligates for any amount; the same is true for the following two questions.)

1. Since he said 'eat', he refers to (the quantity of eating,) an olive's worth;
2. Or - since it is not normally eaten, he means any amount?
3. This question is not resolved.

(o) Question (Rava): If one swore 'I will not eat Chartzan (grape skins or pits), how much is he liable for?

1. Since they are eaten along with the grape, he refers to the quantity of eating, an olive's worth;
2. Or - since they are not normally eaten by themselves, he means any amount?
3. This question is not resolved.

(p) Question (Rav Ashi): If a Nazir swore 'I will not eat Chartzan', how much is he liable for?

1. Since a Nazir if forbidden (and liable) for an olive's worth, he refers to something he was permitted, i.e. less than an olive's worth;
2. Or - since he said 'eat', he refers to an olive's worth?

(q) Answer #1 (Mishnah): If one swore 'I will not eat', and he ate Neveilos, Treifos, rodents or insects, he is liable;

1. R. Shimon exempts him.
2. Question: Why do Chachamim obligate him? The oath (we accepted on Sinai) already obligates him not to eat them (so his oath does not takes effect)!
3. Answer #1 (Rav, Shmuel and R. Yochanan): Because his oath takes effect on permitted food, it also takes effect on forbidden food.
4. Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): The Torah only forbids him from eating an olive's worth of these things, his oath forbids him from eating any amount;

i. We find this according to Chachamim if he specified (any amount), or according to R. Akiva even without specifying.

5. Culmination of answer: A Nazir eating Chartzan is like a regular person eating Neveilos - and Chachamim say that it applies to any amount only if he specifies.

(r) Suggestion: We can resolve Rava's question ('I will not eat dirt', how much is he liable for?)!

1. Just as the quantity of Neveilos (without specifying) is an olive's worth, also for dirt!

(s) Rejection: No - Rava is unsure about dirt, because it is unfit to eat;

1. Neveilos are fit to eat, they are just forbidden.

(a) (Mishnah): If one swore 'I will not eat' and he ate and drank, he is only liable once (lashes if warned, a sacrifice if he forgot);

1. If he swore 'I will not eat and I will not drink' and he ate and drank, he is liable twice.

(b) If he swore 'I will not eat' and he ate wheat bread, barley bread and spelt bread, he is only liable once.

1. If he swore 'I will not eat wheat bread, barley bread or spelt bread', and he ate all three, he is liable for each.

(c) If he swore 'I will not drink' and he drank many beverages, he is only liable once;

1. If he swore 'I will not drink wine, oil or honey' and he drank all three, he is liable for each.

(d) If he swore 'I will not eat' and he ate things unfit to eat or drank liquids unfit to drink, he is exempt.
(e) If he swore 'I will not eat', and he ate Neveilos, Treifos, rodents or insects, he is liable;
(f) R. Shimon exempts him.
(g) If one swore 'Konam, I may not benefit from my wife if I ate today' and he ate Neveilos, Treifos, rodents or insects, she is forbidden to him.
(h) (Gemara - R. Chiya bar Avin): If one swore 'I will not eat' and he drank, he is liable.
(i) We can learn this from a verse or from reasoning.

1. We can learn from reasoning: a person says 'Let us taste something', and they eat *and drink*;