1)

(a)The Rabanan learn 'Ta'am k'Ikar' from "Mishras", and all other Isurim in the Torah from a Kal va'Chomer from Nazir. Why does Rebbi Akiva not use the same Kal va'Chomer to extend 'Heter Mitztaref l'Isur' to all Isurim in the Torah?

(b)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Tzav "Kol Asher Yiga bi'Vesarah Yikdash"?

(c)If a piece of Shelamim touched fat of a Kasher Chatas (see Mosaf Rashi) - one of which was hot, which three Chumros would it now adopt?

1)

(a)Rebbi Akiva cannot use the Kal va'Chomer to extend 'Heter Mitztaref l'Isur' from Nazir to all Isurim in the Torah - because the Pasuk by Chatas also teaches us 'Heter Mitztaref l'Isur', and 'Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad, Ein Melamdin'.

(b)We learn from the Pasuk in Tzav "Kol Asher Yiga bi'Vesarah Yikdash" - that anything (that is fit to become Kadosh) which touches a Chatas and absorbs from it, adopts the Kedushah of the Chatas.

(c)If a piece of Shelamim touched fat of a Kasher Chatas (see Mosaf Rashi) - one of which was hot - it must be eaten within the curtains of the Azarah, by male Kohanim only and only on the day it is brought plus the following night.

2)

(a)Why do the Rabanan require two Pesukim ("Mishras" by Nazir, and "Kol Asher Yiga" etc. by Chatas)? Why are they not considered 'Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad'?

(b)Rebbi Akiva, on the other hand, does consider them 'Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad'. Why is that?

(c)According to him, which of the two Pesukim is superfluous?

2)

(a)The Rabanan require "Mishras" by Nazir for 'Ta'am k'Ikar' (which we extend to the entire Torah), and "Kol Asher Yiga" etc. by Chatas for 'Heter Mitztaref l'Isur' (from which we cannot learn Chulin, since Chulin mi'Kodshim Lo Yalfinan).

(b)Rebbi Akiva, on the other hand, does consider them 'Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad' - because, according to him, both Pesukim are speaking about 'Heter Mitztaref l'Isur', making them 'Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad' - v'Ein Melamdin.

(c)According to him, we need the Pasuk by Nazir, because 'Chulin mi'Kodshim Lo Yalfinan'; but we do not need the Pasuk by Chatas, since we could learn it from Nazir, making it a case of 'Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad'.

3)

(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Naso "mi'Kol Asher Ye'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin"?

(b)According to Rebbi Akiva who learns Heter Mitztaref l'Isur, why do we need this Pasuk? Why is it not a Kal va'Chomer from Heter Mitztaref l'Isur?

3)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Naso "mi'Kol Asher Ye'aseh mi'Gefen ha'Yayin" - that all Isurei Nazir combine to make up the Shi'ur k'Zayis.

(b)According to Rebbi Akiva who learns 'Heter Mitztaref l'Isur' - we would not know from a Kal va'Chomer that Isur Mitztaref l'Isur - because whereas the former is speaking specifically when they are eaten simultaneously, the latter is speaking even when they are eaten one after the other (provided they are eaten within the time limit of 'Kedei Achilas Pras).

4)

(a)The Rabanan of Rebbi Eliezer, who exempt Kutach ha'Bavli from Kares, hold that 'Ta'am k'Ikar' is only mid'Rabanan. Why should it not be d'Oraisa, either from Gi'ulei Nochrim (like Rebbi Akiva) or from "Mishras" (like the Rabanan)?

4)

(a)The Rabanan of Rebbi Eliezer do not learn 'Ta'am k'Ikar' from Gi'ulei Nochrim (like Rebbi Akiva), because they hold that Gi'ulei Nochrim is a Chidush (like the Rabanan); nor do they learn it from "Mishras" (like the Rabanan), because they use "Mishras" for Heter Mitztaref l'Isur (like Rebbi Akiva).

5)

(a)According to the Tana of our Mishnah, is one obligated to destroy the dough from the cracks of a dish?

(b)How does Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel restrict the obligation to destroy it still further? What leniency can we deduce from his words?

(c)In the second Lashon, he confines the leniency in the Seifa, which permits retaining less than a k'Zayis, to when the dough was put there to strengthen the dish, but not when it was not. What stringency can we deduce from that?

5)

(a)According to the Tana of our Mishnah, one is obligated to destroy the dough from the cracks of a dish - wherever there is at least a k'Zayis in one place.

(b)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel restricts the obligation to - where the dough has not been placed there to strengthen the dish, but if it has, then one is not obligated to destroy it, even if there is more than a k'Zayis in one place.

(c)We can deduce from the second Lashon (where Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel restricts the leniency in the Seifa, which permits retaining less than a k'Zayis, to when the dough was put there to strengthen the dish) - that wherever there is more than a k'Zayis, it must be destroyed even if it was placed there to strengthen the dish.

45b----------------------------------------45b

6)

(a)How did Rav Huna resolve the two contradictory Beraisos, one which held like the first Lashon of Shmuel, the other, like the second?

(b)Rav Yosef disagrees. According to him, it is simply a Machlokes Tana'im - Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar and the Tana Kama of the Beraisa. The Tana Kama says that a block of yeast that has gone bad must nevertheless be destroyed. Why is that?

(c)What does Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar say? In which point does he disagree with the Tana Kama?

(d)Abaye queries Rav Yosef's explanation, because, he says, 'Tiratzta bik'Zayis, she'Lo bik'Zayis, Mi Tiratzta?' What does he mean to ask?

6)

(a)Rav Huna resolves the two contradictory Beraisos, one which holds like the first Lashon of Shmuel, the other, like the second - by erasing the more lenient Beraisa (the one which holds like the first Lashon).

(b)The Tana Kama says that a block of yeast that has gone bad must nevertheless be destroyed - because it can be ground and used as yeast in many doughs.

(c)Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar says that dough that is designated for another use (even if it is more than a k'Zayis) becomes Batel - and he will be the author of the Beraisa which holds like Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's first Lashon, which permits even more than a k'Zayis of dough that is being used to strengthen the dish.

(d)Rav Yosef's explanation answers the discrepancy by more than a k'Zayis that is put there to strengthen the dish, Abaye points out. He does not however, address the discrepancy by less than a k'Zayis in the case of a dough that was not placed there to strengthen the dish, which the first Beraisa permits, whereas we have no proof that Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar (who is only lenient by dough that was specifically designated for another purpose) will permit any dough that still stands to be eaten.

7)

(a)Abaye therefore establishes both Beraisos according to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar. In that case, why does the second Beraisa advocate getting rid of less than a k'Zayis of dough in a location that is 'Ein Asuy Lechazek', whereas the first Beraisa permits him to retain it?

(b)What definition does Rav Ashi add to the area of she'Lo b'Makom Lishah', and why is that not obvious?

7)

(a)In fact, the Gemara concludes, there are three locations, and three Dinim: 1. the base of the dish, which is a real Makom Lishah (and even a k'Zayis need not be removed). 2. The walls of the dish, which the first Beraisa refers to as 'she'Lo b'Makom Lishah' (though it is partially used during the Lishah, and where less than a k'Zayis is therefore permitted). 3. The outside of the dish, which is not a Makom Lishah at all (and which the second Beraisa refers to as 'she'Lo b'Makom Lishah') and where even less than a k'Zayis of dough is forbidden. Note: The first Beraisa does not address the outside of the dish at all; nor does the second Beraisa address its walls.

(b)Rav Ashi adds the top edge to the area of she'Lo b'Makom Lishah. Nor is this so obvious as it would at first appear - because sometimes, in the course of the kneading, the dough moves to the top of the dish, and the baker finds that he is actually kneading on the top edge of the dish.

8)

(a)Rav Nachman quoting Rav, rules like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar. Why does this clash with Rav Yitzchak bar Ashi, who, also quoting Rav, rules 'Im Tach Paneha b'Tit, Batlah'?

(b)How does the Gemara deal with this discrepancy?

(c)When will two half-k'Zeisim in a dish combine to make up a k'Zayis, and when will they not? To which part of the dish does this apply?

(d)What will be the din if the two half-k'Zeisim are found on the floor of a house, and why should there be a difference?

8)

(a)Rav Nachman quoting Rav, who rules like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, will not require the block of dough to be cemented, since Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar permits it as it is. In that case, this ruling clashes with Rav Yitzchak bar Ashi, who, also quoting Rav, rules 'Im Tach Paneha b'Tit, Batlah' - from which we can infer that, if not, it is not Batel.

(b)Clearly, the Gemara concludes, Rav Nachman and Rav Yitzchak bar Ashi are at loggerheads over what Rav said, since each one quotes him differently.

(c)Two half-k'Zeisim in a dish combine to make up a k'Zayis - if they are joined by a strip of dough thick enough that, if one were to pick it up, both half-k'Zeisim would come up with it.

(d)If the two half-k'Zeisim of Chametz are found on the floor of the house, they will have the Din of a k'Zayis, even if they are not connected - because sometimes, they are placed together in the process of sweeping.

9)

(a)The Gemara is not certain what the Din will be by two half-k'Zeisim that are found, one on one story, and the other, on another story, or half a k'Zayis in a room and half a k'Zayis in an adjoining porch. What is the Gemara's third She'eilah?

(b)Are the three She'eilos one and the same, are they three independent She'eilos, or are they dependant one on the other?

9)

(a)The Gemara's third She'eilah - is what the Din will be by two half-k'Zeisim in two rooms, one within the other.

(b)The three She'eilos are dependent upon each other: Assuming that by two rooms on two stories that the two half-k'Zeisim do not combine, that is because it is unlikely that they will ever fall in the same place, perhaps a half-k'Zayis in a room and a half-k'Zayis in an adjoining porch (where they are more likely to land up together, seeing as one tends to go from one to the other) will combine. And even assuming that in that case, they are considered one k'Zayis, that is because, as we explained, the two areas are constantly used together, this may not be the case, by two half-k'Zeisim in two rooms, one within each other, which (although they are more frequently used than two rooms on two stories) are less frequently used than a room and the adjoining porch.

10)

(a)At which stage does moldy bread lose its status of bread ...

1. ... regarding Tum'as Ochlin (according to the Tana Kama)?

2. ... regarding the prohibition of burning Terumah Tehorah together Terumah Temei'ah?

(b)In which point does Rebbi Nasan disagree with the Tana Kama?

10)

(a)According to the Tana Kama, moldy bread loses its status of bread ...

1. ... regarding Tum'as Ochlin - when a dog will no longer eat it.

2. ... regarding the prohibition of burning Terumah Tehorah together Terumah Temei'ah - already when it becomes unfit for a human-being to eat.

(b)Rebbi Nasan maintains that - the moment it becomes unfit for a human being, it loses its status as food even regarding Tum'as Ochlin.

11)

(a)According to the Tana Kama, how long before Pesach will a tanner need to place flour into a tanning-bowl, before it becomes so smelly that it is no longer necessary to destroy it? Will it make any difference whether there are already skins in the bowl or not?

(b)What does Rebbi Nasan hold?

(c)Like whom is the Halachah? Does it make any difference how close to Pesach the flour is placed in the bowl?

11)

(a)According to the Tana Kama, flour that is placed into a tanning-bowl at least three days before Pesach becomes so smelly that it is no longer necessary to destroy it. This time period will apply whether there are already skins in the bowl or not.

(b)Rebbi Nasan holds - that, if there were skins in the bowl, then even if the flour was placed in the bowl shortly before Pesach, the flour loses its identity.

(c)Rava rules like Rebbi Nasan, even if the flour was placed one day and even one hour before Pesach.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF