Previous daf

1)

(a) We just learned that Resh Lakish establishes 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, why does Rebbi Shimon then rule 'Patur'?

(b) And what is his reason, according to Rebbi Yochanan (who attributes the Rabbanan's reason to Isur Kolel)?

(a) What do we mean when we say that according to Resh Lakish 'Mashkachas Lah be'La'av ve'Hein'?

(b) What is the source for this?

(c) Why does this create ...

1. ... no problem with Resh Lakish's interpretation of our Mishnah?
2. ... a problem with Rebbi Yochanan's?

(a) So to reconcile the Seifa of our Mishnah with the Reisha, we establish the Reisha like Rava.
What does Rava say about a case of 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, ve'Achal Afar'?

(b) Then why is he Chayav in the Seifa ('Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, ve'Achal Neveilos u'Tereifos ... Chayav')?

(c) The Reisha speaks by S'tam, as we learned originally.
How does the Seifa now speak?

(d) What is the problem with the text that reads 'Mashkachas Lah ke'de'Rava', but establishes the case by Neveilah which has gone bad?

(a) How does Rav Mari try 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 ... '? What does the Mishnah rule in that case?

(b) On what grounds do we reject Rav Mari's proof? In what way is that case different?

5)

(a) What is an 'Isur Mosif'? What would be an example of this with regard to a piece of Cheilev Kodesh?

(b) Why might even those who hold Isur Mosif not necessarily hold of Isur Kolel? What advantage does Isur Mosif have over Isur Kolel?

(c) What does Rava say regarding someone who first declares 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Te'einim' and then 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Te'einim va'Anavim'?

(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 four Chata'os and one Asham.
Why must he bring ...

1. ... four Chata'os?
2. ... one Asham?

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

1. ... Hekdesh? Why does the Isur of Hekdesh take effect on the Cheilev?
2. ... Nosar?
3. ... Tamei? Why does the Isur of Tum'ah (when the person becomes Tamei) take effect at all?
4. ... Yom ha'Kipurim?

(c) On what grounds does the Tana Kama reject Rebbi Meir's comment that, if he carried it out on Shabbos, he would be Chayav another Chatas?

(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)? What do we answer?

(b) In that case, why is Hekdesh not an Isur ha'Ba me'Atzmo?

(c) Alternatively, the Tana precludes Shevu'ah from the list because the Tana is only concerned with things that cannot be revoked.
Why does Hekdesh, which generally comes about through a Neder, not also fall under the category of things that can be revoked, like Shevu'ah?

(a) The third reason we give for the Tana's non-insertion of Shevu'ah in the Mishnah is because the Chiyuv by a Shevu'as Bituy 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.
Who must the Tamei person then have been? What does Rebbi Eliezer say there?

(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 Shiur.
Under what circumstances does Shevu'ah not require a Shi'ur?

(c) How do we answer the Kashya that Hekdesh does not require the Shi'ur of a k'Zayis either?

(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.
How do we answer the Kashya that the Asham Me'ilos comes for a La'av, yet the Tana inserts it?

(a) How can we refer to Me'ilah as a La'av, when Rebbi (in a Beraisa) specifically rules that one would be Chayav Misah?

(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.
What problem do we have with this from Hekdesh?

(c) So how do we amend Ravina's answer? On which category of things do Shevu'os take effect, which Hekdesh will not?

Next daf