We just learned that Resh Lakish establishes the Rabbanan in our Mishnah ('Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, ve'Achal Neveilos u'Tereifos ... , Chayav') by Chatzi Shi'ur. Bearing in mind that we are referring to an Isur Malkos, why does Rebbi Shimon then rule that he is 'Patur'?
(b)
And what is his reason, according to Rebbi Yochanan (who attributes the Rabbanan's reason to Isur Kolel)?
1)
(a)
We just learned that Resh Lakish establshes the Rabbanan in our Mishnah ('Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, ve'Achal Neveilos u'Tereifos ... , Chayav') by Chatzi Shi'ur. Bearing in mind that we are referring to an Isur Malkos, Rebbi Shimon rules 'Patur' - because he holds 'Kol Shehu le'Makos', in which case, he is Mushba ve'Omeid me'Har Sinai' even on less than a k'Zayis.
(b)
And according to Rebbi Yochanan (who attributes the Rabbanan's reason to Isur Kolel) - he does not hold of Isur Chal al Isur, even by Isur Kolel, as we just explained.
2)
(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...
1.
... not create a problem with Resh Lakish's interpretation of our Mishnah?
2.
... create a problem with that of Rebbi Yochanan?
2)
(a)
When we say that according to Resh Lakish, 'Mashkachas lah be'La'av ve'Hein', we mean that - a Shevu'as Bituy is only effective if it can be applied both in the negative and in the positive.
(b)
The source for this is - the Pasuk in Vayikra "Lehara O Leheitiv" (implying that both must be possible).
(c)
This does ...
1.
... not create a problem with Resh Lakish's interpretation of our Mishnah - because 'Ochal Chatzi Shi'ur Neveilah ... ' is not a case of 'Nishba Levatel es ha'Mitzvah' any more than 'Lo Ochal ... '.
2.
... create a problem with Rebbi Yochanan's interpretation however - because someone who makes a Shevu'ah to eat Neveilos and T'reifos together with other food, is clearly guilty of 'Nishba Levatel es ha'Mitzvah'.
3)
(a)
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)
There are three problems with the text that reads 'Mashkachas lah ke'de'Rava', but establishes the case by Neveilah which has gone bad. 1. Neveilah that has gone bad is not called Neveilah (in which case, the Shevu'ah will not apply by 'Hein'); 2. If that is the case, then why bring Rava into the answer at all. What is the third problem (in connection with Rav Mari's proof from our Mishnah (that we are about to bring)?
3)
(a)
To reconcile the Seifa of our Mishnah with the Reisha, we establish the Reisha like Rava, who rules that - 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, ve'Achal Afar' is Patur'.
(b)
And the reason that he is Chayav in the Seifa ('Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, ve'Achal Neveilos u'Tereifos') is - because Neveilos and T'reifos, Shekatzim and Remasim are considered edible (despite the fact that the Torah forbids them [as we learned earlier]).
(c)
The Reisha speaks by S'tam, as we learned originally - and so does the Seifa.
(d)
There are three problems with the text that reads 'Mashkachas lah ke'de'Rava', but establishes the case by Neveilah which has gone bad. 1. Neveilah that has gone bad is not called Neveilah (in which case, the Shevu'ah will not apply by 'Hein'); 2. If that is the case, then why bring Rava into the answer at all - 3. Rav Mari's proof from our Mishnah (that we are about to bring) - falls away (see also Tosfos DH 'Ela').
4)
(a)
How does Rav Mari try to prove that Neveilos and T'reifos are considered edible, 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?
4)
(a)
Rav Mari tries to prove that Neveilos and T'reifos are considered edible, from the Seifa 'Konem Ishti Nehenis li Im Achalti, ve'Achal ha'Yom Neveilos u'Tereifos ... - Harei Ishto Asurah lo', indicationg that these are considered edible.
(b)
We reject Rav Mari's proof however, on the grounds that - this case is different, inasmuch as the Shevu'ah followed the Mashbia's having eaten, in which case he has revealed that these foods are Chashuv to him (even if they are not generally considered edible.
24b----------------------------------------24b
5)
(a)
What is an 'Isur Mosif'?
(b)
What is an example of this with regard to a piece of Cheilev Kodesh?
(c)
Why might even those who hold Isur Mosif not necessarily hold of Isur Kolel? What advantage does Isur Mosif have over Isur Kolel?
(d)
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'?
(e)
Why does Rava need to say this? Why is it not obvious?
5)
(a)
'Isur Mosif' is - where an Isur is added to a piece that is already Asur ...
(b)
... for example, a piece of Cheilev Kodesh which became Nosar, adding the prohibition of bringing it on the Mizbe'ach.
(c)
Even those who hold Isur Mosif (where the new Isur affects the forbidden article) might not necessarily hold of Isur Kolel - where the new Isur only creates a prohibition on other articles (such as Yom Kipur, which causes permitted foods to become forbidden), but not on the original one.
(d)
Rava rules that, if someone first declares 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Te'einim' and then 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Te'einim va'Anavim' - then, according to those who hold Isur Kolel, the second Shevu'ah will take effect.
(e)
Rava needs to say this - because we would otherwise have said that Isur Kolel only takes effect if it comes by itself (like Yom-Kipur on Neveilah); but not if it is added by the Noder himself.
6)
(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)
Bearing in mind that the Isur Cheilev takes effect as soon as the animal is born, why do we not apply the principle 'Ein Isur Chal al Asur with regard to Hekdesh? On what grounds does the Isur of...
1.
... Hekdesh take effect on Cheilev?
2.
... Nosar take effect on Cheilev?
3.
... Tamei take effect on Cheilev?
4.
... Yom Kipur take effect on Cheilev?
(c)
Why does the Tana Kama reject Rebbi Meir's comment that, if he carried it out on Shabbos, he would be Chayav another Chatas?
6)
(a)
The Mishnah in K'risus obligates a Tamei who eats Cheilev of Nosar of Hekdesh on Yom Kipur to bring ...
1.
... four Chata'os - one for Cheilev, one for Nosar, one for Yom Kipur and one for a Tamei who eats Kodesh.
2.
... and one Asham - an Asham Me'ilos (for benefiting from Hekdesh).
(b)
Even though the Isur Cheilev takes effect as soon as the animal is born, we do not apply the principle 'Ein Isur Chal al Asur with regard to ...
1.
... Hekdesh - because it is an Isur Kolel (since it creates a prohibition on the remainder of the animal).
2.
... Nosar - because it is an Isur Mosif (seeing as it may not be brought on the Mizbe'ach either).
3.
... Tamei - because it is an Isur Kolel (since he becomes forbidden to eat Kodshim which he was previously permitted to eat).
4.
... Yom Kipur - because it is an Isur Kolel (as we explained earlier).
(c)
The Tana Kama rejects Rebbi Meir's comment that, if he carried it out on Shabbos, he would be Chayav another Chatas - because carrying does not belong in the list, which concerns only by eating.
7)
(a)
How do we refute Rava b'rei de'Rabah's Kashya, according to Rava, why 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)?
(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?
7)
(a)
We refute Rava b'rei de'Rabah's Kashya, 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), because - even though the Tana holds Isur Kolel also Isur ha'Ba me'Atzmo, he is only concerned with cases of 'Isur ha'Ba me'Eilav'.
(b)
Hekdesh in the Mishnah is not an Isur ha'Ba me'Atzmo - because we establish the Mishnah by a B'chor (which is 'Ba me'Eilav').
(c)
Alternatively, the Tana precludes Shevu'ah from the list because the Tana is only concerned with things that cannot be revoked. Hekdesh, which generally comes about through a Neder, does not fall under this category - because, here too, we establish the Mishnah by a B'chor (which cannot be revoked).
8)
(a)
The third reason we give for the Tana declining to insert 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 query Rav Ashi from Hekdesh, who ascribes the Tana's failure to insert Shevu'ah in the Mishnah to the fact that the Tana is only concerned with things that require a Shi'ur. 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 (such as 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 too, comes for a La'av, yet the Tana inserts it?
8)
(a)
The third reason we give for the Tana declining to insert Shevu'ah in the Mishnah is because the Chiyuv 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 The Tamei person must then have been - the Nasi, about whom Rebbi Eliezer says that if he eats Kodesh, he must bring a goat (as a Chatas Kavu'a [since he would have been Chayav Kareis had he done so be'Meizid]).
(b)
We also query Rav Ashi from Hekdesh, who ascribes the Tana's failure to insert Shevu'ah in the Mishnah to the fact that the Tana is only concerned with things that require a Shi'ur - and a Shevu'ah does not require a Shi'ur by Mefaresh (where the Nishba specified less than the Shi'ur, as we explained earlier).
(c)
We answer the Kashya (that Hekdesh does not require the Shi'ur of a k'Zayis either) - by pointing out that it might not require the Shi'ur of a k'Zayis, but it does require the Shi'ur of a P'rutah (as we have already learned).
(d)
Rav Ashi from Aviraya answers that the Tana only inserts cases that are Shogeg of a Chiyuv Kareis (such as Cheilev, Nosar and Yom Kipur), precluding Shevu'as Bituy, which is the Shogeg of a La'av. The fact that the Asham Me'ilos too, comes for a La'av, yet the Tana inserts it, does not bother us - because we are only concerned with a Chatas, which generally comes for a Chiyuv Kareis, but not an Asham.
9)
(a)
How can we refer to Me'ilah as a La'av, when Rebbi (in a Beraisa) specifically rules that one is Chayav Misah (bi'Yedei Shamayim)?
(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 does not?
9)
(a)
In spite of the fact that Rebbi rules that one is Chayav Misah [bi'Yedei Shamayim] for Me'ilah), we refer to Me'ilah as a La'av - according to the Rabbanan (in the Beraisa.
(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. The problem from Hekdesh is - that it pertains to wood and stones (by Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis), in which case it too, ought to have been omitted.
(c)
So we amend Ravina's answer to read that - Shevu'os are different, inasmuch as they take effect on abstract issues (such as 'she'Ishan' or she'Lo Ishan'), whereas Hekdesh does not.
