Clarification: And in the event that the bird dies by itself, then he did not negate the Asei.

Question: Why can it not be speaking where he killed it, and it is not a case of 'Kam Leih bi'de'Rabah Mineih' because he killed it be'Shogeg?

Answer: Because, seeing as he killed it be'Shogeg, it is no different than if it died by itself . So Mashi'ach asked and answered.

Clarification: Rashi establishes it where he made the Neder after discovering that she had committed adultery and was therefore forbidden to him.

Question: This is not correct however, because in that case, he is not obligated to retain her.

Alternative Explanation: It therefore appears that she did not sin, yet the Neder nevertheless takes effect, because it speaks where he said 'Konem (Hana'as) Tashmishech Alai', in which case the Neder takes effect, as we learned in Nedarim, 81a.

Question: But this is an Asei that is preceded by a La'av, seeing as returning the security is applicable before the creditor transgresses by going to the debtor's house to take the security, because returning the security applies where he takes it with permission?

Answer: In Perek Eilu Metzi'os (Bava Metzi'a 31:) we extrapolate from the double Lashon "Hashev Tashiv" that it refers to where he took it without permission; in that case, the Asei of "Hashev Tashiv lo" applies only after he has transgressed the La'av, as we said above 'If we do not need the Pasuk for before the La'v, establish it after it'.

Clarification: It is possible to negate the Asei (of returning the security), but he will not receive Malkos, seeing as he is Chayav to pay, and wherever there is an obligation to pay, there is no Malkos.

Alternative Text & Explanation: Others have the text 'and one cannot receive Malkos and pay'. What this means is that since he fulfills his obligation by paying for the article, he will not be subject to Malkos.

Refuted Explanation: It cannot however mean that, based on the Pasuk "K'dei Rish'aso" (which teaches us that a person cannot receive two punishments) he will be Chayav to pay and is Patur from Malkos.

Reason for refutation: ... because then the reverse would be true; he would receive Malkos and be Patur from paying; as R. Yochanan taught in Kesuvos, that whoever is Chayav to pay and to receive Malkos, 'Lokeh ve'Eino Meshalem'.

A Second Reason: ,,, because if that were so, then on what grounds does the Gemara ask from the security of a Ger, where the Ger died, and answer that there it is different, seeing as the man is still obligated to pay, and it is the Shibud that has been removed when the Ger died that prevents him from paying. What difference does it make? At the end of the day, seeing as he failed to pay before the Ger died, 'Bitlo' applies, and, seeing as he is not paying, why should he not receive Malkos?

Conclusion: We must therefore explain like we just said, that since the sinner remains obligated to pay, and as long as he pays, he does not receive Malkos, 'Bitlo' is therefore not applicable.

Question: According to Resh Lakish at least, one can find a case of 'Kiymo ve'Lo Kiymo', where Beis-Din warned him to return what he owes, and he declines?

Answer: That is correct! According to Resh Lakish it is certainly possible to find cases of 'Kiymo, ve'Lo Kiymo', even without a Neder, and besides the case of Hashavas he'Avot; And it is according to R. Yochanan, who holds 'Bitlo, ve'Lo Bitlo' that the Gemara could find only two cases, and which therefore asked 'Are there no more cases ... '?

Question: The fact that the Gemara mentions 'Kiymo, ve'Lo Kiymo' however, implies that it is asking on Resh Lakish too?

Answer: The Gemara's question is in fact, confined to R. Yochanan (as we explained), and it only mentions 'Kiymo, ve'Lo Kiymo' by the way (even though it has no relevance).

Clarification: According to Rashi it refers to a worm in a cabbage

Question: What is Rav Yehudah then coming to teach us? Seeing as it is a regular insect, it is obvious that he will receive Malkos?

Alternative Explanation: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that 'Binisa' is a small fish that is found in the plow; and what Rav Yehudah is coming to teach us is that, even though it has fins and scales, in which case it would be Kasher if one were to find it in the water, if it is found on dry land, it is subject to Malkos.

Clarification: 'Chai' means whole, but not alive, because if it did, how could it possibly make up a k'Zayis of Neveilah?

Question: Why does it need to be whole? Why will he not receive Malkos on account of the regular La'av of Sheratzim, seeing as the 'Achilah' by Sheratzim comes to teach us that somebody who eats one of a number of k'Zeisim receives Malkos?

Suggested Explanation: Why can we not explain that he really needs to eat a k'Zayis that is at the same time whole?

Refutation: We cannot say that, seeing as one is Chayav for eating a whole ant, irrespective of its size, 'Achilah' must be coming to teach us that one is Chayav for eating one k'Zayis out of four or five, as we explained.

Answer: The reason that the Gemara says 'one whole one' is because some of the La'avin of Sheratzim are not written using a Lashon of 'Achilah', and it is those La'avin that are not subject to Malkos, unless he eats the Beryah whole. But certainly, as far as those La'avin that are written using a Lashon of 'Achilah' is concerned, he will receive Malkos even on the one ant is not whole.

Query: But how can the whole ant combine to the k'Zayis of Neveilos, bearing in mind that Isur Neveilah cannot take effect on the Isur of Sheratzim?

Proof: Just like we find in Me'ilah, where the Gemara says that the Isur of Neveilah cannot take effect on the Isur of Beheimah Teme'ah?

Answer: Our Sugya holds 'Isur Chal al Isur', to conform to the opinion there which holds that they combine for the Isur Achilah too, to render him Chayav Malkos for both Beheimah Temei'ah and Tehorah (Neveilah), even though the latter is neither an Isur Kolel nor an Isur Mosif.

Reason: And the reason for that is because we find the Isur of Neveilah taking effect on the Isur of Cheilev, even according to those who do not otherwise hold that 'Isur Chal al Isur'. Consequently, we also say that Teme'im combine (see Maharsha).

Question: What makes a whole ant plus two a bigger Chidush than a whole ant plus ten?

Answer: The Chidush is that even though if the whole one would be crushed like the other two, it would not complete the k'Zayis, now that it does, he receives Malkos because of the k'Zayis. This is less of a Chidush than where there are ten ants plus the whole one, since there, seeing as there are so many crushed one, the whole one would complete the k"Zayis if it was crushed.

Clarification: Large ones means 'another one' plus the whole one.

Question: Seeing as the Gemara enters into these details, why does it not teach us that for eating one whole ant alone he will receive six Malkos, due to a combination of Beryah and a k'Zayis Neveilah?

Answer: Perhaps it is because it is unusual to find one ant that is the size of a k'Zayis.