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 b'Hana'ah. How will Rebbi Avahu explain this, in view of the fact that the Torah writes in Vayishlach "Al Ken Lo Yochlu Bnei Yisrael es Gid ha'Nasheh"?
(c)What is the problem with this answer according to those who hold 'Ein b'Gidin b'Nosen Ta'am'?
(d)How does the Gemara resolve this problem?
1)
(a)We are not afraid that a Jew who sees his fellow-Jew sending a gentile a thigh with the sciatic-nerve still attached, will assume that the sender will have removed the sciatic nerve, will purchase the thigh from the gentile, and eat it, sciatic nerve and all - because the location of the sciatic-nerve is clearly visible, so that he will know at once whether the sciatic-nerve has been removed or not.
(b)Rebbi Avahu learns that when the Torah permits benefiting from Neveilah, it includes the Chelev and the sciatic-nerve.
(c)This answer is not valid according to those who hold 'Ein b'Gidin b'Nosen Ta'am' - because in their opinion, Gid ha'Nasheh has no taste and can therefore not be labelled 'Neveilah'. In that case, it would not be permitted together with Neveilah.
(d)The Tana who holds 'Ein b'Gidin b'Nosen Ta'am' - is Rebbi Shimon, and Rebbi Shimon does indeed forbids deriving benefit from Gid ha'Nasheh.
2)
(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah, someone who eats the sciatic nerve of a non-Kasher animal receives two sets of Malkus. Why is that?
(b)Rebbi Shimon exempts him from Malkus altogether. Why should he not receive at least one set, for eating Gid ha'Nasheh?
2)
(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah, someone who eats the sciatic nerve of a non-Kasher animal receives two sets of Malkus - one for eating Neveilah (because he holds 'Yesh b'Gidin b'Nosen Ta'am') and the other for eating the sciatic-nerve.
(b)Rebbi Shimon exempts him from Malkus altogether, even for eating Gid ha'Nasheh - because one is only Chayav for eating the Gid ha'Nasheh of an animal whose flesh is permitted, but not of one that is forbidden.
3)
(a)The Torah writes in Acharei-Mos "Kol Nefesh Mikem Lo Sochlu Dam". According to Rebbi Avahu, blood should therefore be Asur b'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'eh "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?
3)
(a)The Mishnah in Avodah-Zarah permits the excess blood of the Sin-offering to be sold to gardeners as fertilizer, indicating that, on principle, blood is Mutar b'Hana'ah (in spite of the Pasuk "Kol Nefesh Mikem Lo Sochlu Dam") - because blood is compared to water ("Al ha'Aretz Tishpechenu ka'Mayim"), which is permitted.
(b)we know that, when the Torah writes in Re'eh "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) - because it uses a Lashon of Shefichah, and not of 'Nisuch'.
(c)We also know that it is not comparing blood to water that was poured out to Avodah-Zarah - since that too, is referred to as Nisuch (and not Shefichah).
(d)According to Chizkiyah (in whose opinion "Lo Sochlu" does not imply Isur Hana'ah), the Torah needs to compare blood to water - to teach us the Din of Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who says that the blood of Kodshim is not Machshir (because it is not poured out - but is needed for sprinkling), as we explained earlier 16a.
22b----------------------------------------22b
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 b'Hana'ah?
(c)According to Rebbi Avahu, why is it not Asur b'Hana'ah, seeing as the Torah writes in Re'eh "v'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?
4)
(a)One may not give a piece of Ever min ha'Chai to a gentile - because, seeing as he, like a Jew, is forbidden to eat it, one would transgress 'Lifnei Iver Lo Siten Michshol'.
(b)We know that Ever min ha'Chai is Mutar b'Hana'ah - from the fact that Rebbi Nasan forbids giving it to a gentile, implying that one may give it to one's dog - which is also considered Hana'ah.
(c)Eiver min ha'Chai is not Asur b'Hana'ah, according to Rebbi Avahu, in spite of the Pasuk "v'Lo Sochal ha'Nefesh Im ha'Basar" - because the Torah elsewhere compares it to blood, which is Mutar b'Hana'ah.
(d)Chizkiyah argues that it is not Ever min ha'Chai which is being compared to blood (in the way that Rebbi Avahu explains), but blood that is being compared to Ever min ha'Chai - to teach us that Dam min ha'Chai, like Eiver min ha'Chai, is Asur. This refers to the blood of blood-letting (some of which is life-blood).
5)
(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim ...
1. ... "v'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?
5)
(a)We learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "v'Lo Ye'achel es Besaro" - that if one Shechted an ox which was due to be stoned, its flesh may nevertheless not be eaten.
2. ... "u'Ba'al ha'Shor Naki" - that it is also Asur b'Hana'ah.
(b)According to both Rebbi Avahu and Chizkiyah, seeing as the Torah writes "Lo Ye'achel", why is it necessary to write "u'Ba'al ha'Shor Naki" to teach us the Isur Hana'ah?
(c)They answer that "u'Ba'al ha'Shor Naki" - comes to teach us not that the flesh is Asur b'Hana'ah, but that the skin is.
(d)If not for this Pasuk, we would have permitted deriving benefit from the skin of a Shor ha'Niskal - since the Torah wrote "v'Lo Ye'achel es Besaro", implying that the skin is permitted.
6)
(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?
6)
(a)Those Tana'im who learn something else from "u'Ba'al ha'Shor Naki" (i.e. either that if the goring ox is a Tam, the owner is not obligated to pay half of the Kofer; or that if an ox gores a pregnant woman, and she loses the fetus, the owner of the ox is not obligated to pay), learn the prohibition of deriving benefit from the skin of an ox that has to be stoned, from "es Besaro"- 'es ha'tofel li'Besaro' (to include the skin).
(b)The previous Tana does not Darshen "es Besaro" - because he follows the opinion of Shimon ha'Amsuni, who desisted from Darshening every 'Es' in the Torah.
(c)Initially, Shimon ha'Amsuni began Darshening the 'Eses', until he arrived at the Pasuk in Eikev "es Hash-m Elokecha Tira", because in his opinion, there is no-one whom one can be obligated to fear (i.e. stand in awe) in the same way as one fears Hash-m.
(d)Shimon Ha'amsuni argued that, just as initially (when he was convinced that that was the right thing to do), he received reward for all the Derashos that he made, so too, would he now receive for having desisted.
7)
(a)How did Rebbi Akiva explain "es Hash-m Elokecha Tira"?
7)
(a)Rebbi Akiva explains "es Hash-m Elokecha Tira" - to include Talmidei-Chachamim, whom one is obligated to fear just as one fears Hash-m.
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"?
8)
(a)We learn from "va'Araltem Orlaso ... Arelim" - that one is forbidden to derive any benefit from Orlah.
(b)Otherwise, in spite of the Pasuk "Lo Ye'achel" - we would have permitted the deriving of benefit from Orlah, because the Torah writes "Lachem".
(c)The Torah writes "Lachem" by Orlah - either to incorporate a public tree (which is planted in the public-domain - see Tosfos DH 'Natua') in the Din of Orlah (according to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa), or to preclude it (according to Rebbi Yehudah).
(d)The Tana Kama understands that "u'Neta'tem" implies each individual; consequently, "Lachem" comes to include a public tree. Whereas according to Rebbi Yehudah, "u'Neta'tem" implies even public trees, in which case "Lachem", which also comes to include public trees, is an inclusion after an inclusion, which, according to Chazal, comes to exclude.