Previous daf

1)

(a) We just learned that Resh Lakish establshes the Rabbanan in our Mishnah ('Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, ve'Achal Neveilos u'Terifos ... , Chayav') by Chatzi Shi'ur. Bearing in mind that we are referring to an Isur Malkos, Rebbi Shimon rules 'Patur' - because he holds 'Kol Shehu le'Makos'.

(b) And according to Rebbi Yochanan (who attributes the Rabbanan's reason to Isur Kolel) - he does not hold of Isur Chal al Isur, even by Isur Kolel, as we just explained.

(a) When we say that according to Resh Lakish 'Mashkachas Lah be'La'av ve'Hein', we mean - that a Shevu'as Bituy is only effective if it can be applied both in the negative and in the positive.

(b) The source for this is - the Pasuk in Vayikra "Lehara O Leheitiv" (implying both possibilities).

(c) This creates ...

1. ... no problem with Resh Lakish's interpretation of our Mishnah - because 'Ochal Chatzi Shiur Neveilah ... ' is not a case of 'Nishba Levatel es ha'Mitzvah' any more than 'Lo Ochal ... ' is one 'Mushba ve'Omed me'Har Sinai'.
2. ... a problem with Rebbi Yochanan's interpretation - because someone who makes a Shevu'ah to eat Neveilos and T'reifos together with other food, is clearly guilty of 'Nishba Levatel es ha'Mitzvah'

(a) So to reconcile the Seifa of our Mishnah with the Reisha, we establish the Reisha like Rava, who says that 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, ve'Achal Afar - Patur'.

(b) And the reason that he is Chayav in the Seifa ('Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, ve'Achal Neveilos u'Tereifos ... Chayav') is - because Neveilos and T'reifos, Shekatzim and Remasim are considered edibles (despite the fact that the Torah forbids them [as we learned above]).

(c) The Reisha speaks by S'tam, as we learned originally - and so does the Seifa.

(d) The problem with the text that reads 'Mashkachas Lah ke'de'Rava', but establishes the case by Neveilah which has gone bad is - that firstly, that Neveilah that has gone bad is not called Neveilah (in which case, the Shevu'ah will not apply by 'Hein'); secondly, if that is the case, then why bring Rava into the answer at all?; and thirdly, Rav Mari's proof from our Mishnah (that we are about to bring) falls away (see also Tosfos DH 'Ela').

(a) Rav Mari tries to prove that Neveilos and T'reifos are considered edibles, from the Seifa 'Konem Ishti Nehenis Li Im Achalti, ve'Achal ha'Yom Neveilos u'Tereifos ... - Harei Ishto Asurah Lo', from which it would seem that these are considered edibles.

(b) We reject Rav Mari's proof on the grounds - that this case is different - inasmuch as the Shevu'ah followed the Mashbia's having eaten, in which case he has revealed that these foods are Chashuv in his eyes.

5)

(a) 'Isur Mosif' is - where an Isur is added to a piece that is already Asur, for example, a piece of Cheilev Kodesh which became Nosar, forbidding it to go on the Mizbe'ach.

(b) Even those who hold Isur Mosif (where the new Isur affects the forbidden article) might not necessarily hold of Isur Kolel - where the new Isur only creates a prohibition on other articles (such as Yom Kipur, which causes permitted foods to become forbidden), but not on the original one.

(c) Rava says that, if someone first declares 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Te'einim' and then 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Te'einim va'Anavim' - then, according to those who hold Isur Kolel, the second Shevu'ah will take effect.

(d) Why does Rava need to say this? Why is it not obvious?

(a) The Mishnah in K'risus obligates a Tamei who eats Cheilev of Nosar of Hekdesh on Yom Kipur to bring ...

1. ... four Chata'os - one for Cheilev, one for Nosar, one for Yom Kipur and one for a Tamei who eats Kodesh.
2. ... and one Asham - an Asham Me'ilos (for benefiting from Hekdesh).

(b) Even though the Isur Cheilev took effect as soon as the animal was born, we do not apply the principle 'Ein Isur Chal al Asur with regard to ...

1. ... Hekdesh - because it is an Isur Kolel (since it creates a prohibition on the remainder of the animal).
2. ... Nosar - because it is an Isur Mosif (seeing as it becomes forbidden to the Mizbe'ach as well).
3. ... Tamei - because it is an Isur Kolel (since he becomes forbidden to eat Kodshim which he was previously permitted to eat.
4. ... Yom ha'Kipurim - because it is an Isur Kolel (as we explained earlier).

(c) The Tana Kama rejects Rebbi Meir's comment that, if he carried it out on Shabbos, he would be Chayav another Chatas - on the grounds that carrying does not belong in the list, which concerns only eating.

(a) Rava B'rei de'Rabah asks why, according to Rava, the Tana does not insert the case where the sinner also declared 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Temarim ve'Cheilev' (which is an Isur Kolel), to which we answer - that even though the Tana will hold that Isur Kolel applies to 'Isur ha'Ba me'Atzmo', he is only concerned with cases of 'Isur ha'Ba me'Eilav'.

(b) Hekdesh in the Mishnah is not an Isur ha'Ba me'Atzmo - because we establish the Mishnah by a Bechor (which is 'Ba me'Eilav').

(c) Alternatively, the Tana precludes Shevu'ah from the list because the Tana is only concerned with things that cannot be revoked. Hekdesh, which generally comes about through a Neder, does not fall under this category - because, here too, we establish the Mishnah by a Bechor.

(a) The third reason we give for the Tana's non-insertion of Shevu'ah in the Mishnah is because the Chiyuv is a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, whereas the Tana is only concerned with a Chatas Kavu'a. To evade the problem from 'Tamei she'Achal es ha'Kodesh' (which also requires a Korban Oleh ve'Yored) we establish the author as Rebbi Eliezer. The Tamei person must then have been - the Nasi, about whom Rebbi Eliezer says that if he eats Kodesh, he must bring a goat (as a Chatas Kavu'a [since he would have been Chayav Kareis had he done so be'Meizid]).

(b) We also ask from Hekdesh on Rav Ashi, who ascribes the Tana's non-insertion of Shevu'ah in the Mishnah to the fact that the Tana is only concerned with things that require a Shi'ur - and a Shevu'ah does not require a Shi'ur by Mefaresh (where the Nishba specified less than the Shiur, as we have already learned above).

(c) We answer the Kashya that Hekdesh does not require the Shi'ur of a k'Zayis either - by pointing out that it might not require the Shi'ur of a k'Zayis, but it does require the Shiur of a P'rutah (as we have already learned).

(d) Rav Ashi from Aviraya answers that the Tana only inserts cases that are Shogeg of a Chiyuv Kareis (Cheilev, Nosar and Yom Kipur), precluding Shevu'as Bituy, which is the Shogeg of a La'av. The fact that the Asham Me'ilos comes for a La'av, yet the Tana inserts it, does not bother us - because we are only talking about the Chatas, which generally comes for a Chiyuv Kareis.

(a) We refer to Me'ilah as a La'av - according to the Rabbanan (in the Beraisa, in spite of the fact that Rebbi rules that one is Chayav Misah [bi'Yedei Shamayim] for Me'ilah).

(b) The final reason for the Tana's omission of Shevu'ah is that of Ravina, who explains that he only lists sins that pertain to food exclusively, whereas Shevu'ah pertains to other things as well. The problem from Hekdesh is - that it pertains to wood and stones (by Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis), in which case it too, ought to have been omitted.

(c) So we amend Ravina's answer to read - that Shevu'os are different - inasmuch as they take effect on abstract issues (such as 'she'Ishan' or she'Lo Ishan'), whereas Hekdesh does not.