Previous daf

1)

(a) So Rav Acha bar Ya'akov quotes the Pasuk in Re'ei (also in connection with Ma'aser Sheini) "Ve'nasata ha'Kesef be'Chol Asher Te'aveh Nafshecha ... u'va'Yayin u'va'Sheichar ... ve'Achalta" as proof that the Lashon "Achilah" incorporates drinking.
Why can we not refute this proof as we did the previous one (from Anigron and Achsigron)?

(b) Nevertheless, we reject this proof too, on the basis of a Beraisa. What does the Beraisa say about someone who ate a Deveilah Ke'ilis or drank honey or milk? What is a 'Deveilah Ke'ilis'?

(c) Maybe the second Pasuk too, is referring to that sort of Sheichar.
So we finally learn that Achilah incorporates drinking from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Sheichar" "Sheichar". From where do we learn it?

(d) How does Rava prove from our Mishnah ('Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, ve'Achal ve'Shasah Eino Chayav Ela Achas') that 'Achilah' incorporates drinking?

(a) How does Abaye query Rava's current proof from the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal ve'she'Lo Eshteh, ve'Achal ve'Shasah, Chayav Shenayim'? What is the problem with this, according to Rava?

(b) How does Rava initially attempt to answer Abaye's Kashya by inverting the wording of the Mishnah?

(c) What problem does the implication of the Seifa then create with the Reisha?

(d) So how does Rava repudiate Abaye's Kashya without inverting the cases?
What makes 'Lo Ochal ve'Lo Eshteh' different than 'Lo Ochal' on its own?

(a) Our Mishnah rules 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, ve'Achal Ochlin she'Einan Re'uyin la'Achilah, ve'Shasah Mashkin she'Einan Re'uyin li'Shesiyah, Patur'. How does Rav Ashi attempt to prove from here that Achilah incorporates Shesiyah?

(b) How do we refute his proof?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Pas Chitin Pas Se'orin ... , Chayav al Kol Achas ve'Achas'.
What problem do we have with this?
Why do we initially think that the Nishba ought to be Chayav only one set of Malkos?

(b) What do we answer?

(c) We query this answer however, on the grounds that Pas Chitin, Se'orin ve'Kusmin would imply that he is forbidding on himself wheat bread, but barley and spelt kernels. How do we answer this? What should he then have said, had he wanted to include them all in one Shevu'ah?

(d) This too, we query, on the grounds that 'Pas Chitin ve'shel Se'orin ve'shel Kusmin' would imply that he was forbidding a loaf that contained all three species. How do we finally amend the Lashon?

(e) So what have we now proved?

5)

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Eshteh Yayin, Shemen u'Devash, ve'Shasah, Chayav al Kol Achas ve'Achas'.
What problem do we have with this?

(b) How does Rav Papa therefore establish the case?

(c) Why, assuming that he wanted to forbid those species on himself, would it not have sufficed to say ...

1. ... 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Eshteh Eilu'?
2. ... 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Eshteh k'Gon Eilu'
3. ... 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Eshteh mi'Miyn Eilu'?

(d) What then ought he to have said?

(a) Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika establishes the case quite differently.
How does our Mishnah speak according to him?

(b) What should he then have replied, had he wanted to forbid them with one Shevu'ah?

(c) What will the extent of the Shevu'ah then be?

(a) We will learn in the Mishnah in 'Shevu'as ha'Pikadon' 'Ten Li Chitin, u'Se'orin ve'Kusmin she'Yesh Li be'Yadcha, Shevu'ah she'Ein Lach be'Yadi K'lum, Eino Chayav Ela Achas'.
What would he have had to respond in order to be Chayav three Ashamos?

(b) What does Rebbi Yochanan mean when he says that even one P'rutah will combine to obligate the Nishba? How many Ashamos does he obligate him to bring?

(a) Rav Acha and Ravina argue with regard to the Seifa of the Mishnah. One says 'a'Perati Mechayev, a'Kelali Lo Mechayev'.
What does he mean by that?
How many Ashamos will the Nishba then be Chayav to bring?

(b) What does the other one say?

(c) How does their Machlokes affect Rebbi Yochanan?

(d) Does this mean that, according to the latter opinion, Rebbi Yochanan will obligate the Nishba to bring four Ashamos even though all three items are worth only one P'rutah between them?

(a) On what grounds do we reject the suggestion that the Machlokes between Rav Acha and Ravina might also extend to our case, where someone made a Shevu'ah forbidding wine, oil and honey on himself, and that he might also be Chayav four sets of Malkos? Why is that not possible?

(b) Then why is it possible in the case of Shevu'as ha'Pikadon?

(a) What problem do we have with the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, ve'Achal Neveilos u'Tereifos ... Chayav'? How does it clash with the Reisha?

(b) Why will it not suffice to simply answer that the Seifa speaks by Mefaresh (when the Nishba specifically included Neveilos and T'reifos in the Shevu'ah)?

(c) To answer the Kashya, Rav, Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan establish the Seifa by a 'Kolel' (when he combined permitted foods together with Neveilos and T'reifos in his Shevu'ah.
How does Resh Lakish establish it, according to ...

1. ... the Rabbanan?
2. ... Rebbi Akiva?

(a) Why does Rebbi Yochanan decline to learn like Resh Lakish?

(b) Resh Lakish, on the other hand, declines to learn like Rebbi Yochanan, because he does not hold of Isur Kolel by Shevu'ah.
By which kind of Isur will he too concede Isur Kolel?

(a) In fact, this is a Machlokes Tana'im.
What do the Rabbanan say with regard to someone who eats Neveilah on Yom Kipur?

(b) Seeing as the Isur Neveilah preceded the Isur of Yom Kipur, why do we not apply the principle 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur'?

(c) In what way is Yom Kipur an Isur Kolel?

(d) What does Rebbi Shimon say?

Next daf