Previous daf

1)

(a) Shmuel rules that someone who makes Sirut with his hand - is Chayav.

(b) The Beraisa states - that Seritah and Gedidah are basically the same, only Seritah is done using the hand, whereas Gedidah requires an implement.

(c) To explain Shmuel in light of the Beraisa, which implies that if one warned a person not to make Sirut with an implement (see Aruch la'Ner) he will be Patur - we establish him like Rebbi Yossi in the previous Beraisa (who holds that the two incorporate both with the hand and using an implement).

(a) Rebbi Yochanan objected to the Beraisa that a Beraisa expert cited to him 'al Meis, Bein be'Yad Bein bi'Keli, Chayav; al Avodah-Zarah be'Yad Chayav, bi'Keli Patur', on the grounds - that if anything, the reverse should be the case, since the Pasuk in Melachim specifically writes "Vayisgodedu ke'Mishpatam be'Charavos u'vi'Remachim'.

(b) So he amended the Beraisa to read - 'al Avodah-Zarah be'Yad Patur, bi'Keli Chayav'.

(c) The ramifications of this Halachah are - that, whereas someone who cuts himself with his hand is only Chayav by the Avodah-Zarah that is worshipped in that way, if he uses an implement, he is Chayav by all Avodah-Zarahs.

(a) To explain our Mishnah ...

1. ... 've'Chayav al ha'Rosh', Rav Sheishes demonstrated - the joints beside the ears that divide between the head and the lower-face.
2. ... 've'Al ha'Zakan Shetayim mi'Ka'an ... ' - he demonstrated the five joints of the jaw, as we explained earlier.

(b) The reason of Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah, who says that one only receives one set of Malkos for shaving the two Pe'os is - because, in his opinion, the two Pe'os constitute one La'av.

(c) Based on the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Pe'as" "Pe'as", the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "*u'Pe'as* Zakanam Lo *Yegalechu*" - that one is Patur for shaving one's beard using tweezers or a plane (which do not constitute shaving).
2. ... Kedoshim "ve'Lo *Sashchis* es *Pe'as* - that one is Patur for shaving with a pair of scissors (and the likes), which do not destroy the beard.

(d) Rebbi Eliezer includes shaving with tweezers or with a plane in the La'av, but not using scissors - because, although he holds of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', he considers the use tweezers and a plane as shaving.

(a) The La'av of Kesoves Ka'aka comprises - first writing on one's skin and then cutting into the writing.

(b) It make no difference what sort of dye one uses to fill the cut - provided it leaves a mark.

(c) Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah qualifies the La'av still further - by requiring (based on the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Ani Hashem") a name to be written.

(d) Rav Acha B'rei de'Rava thought that Rebbi Shimon requires the words "Ani Hashem" to be written, until Rav Ashi told him - that he means the name of an Avodah-Zarah (because "Ani Hashem" comes to teach us the inference 'Ani Hu ve'Lo Acher').

(a) Rav Malkiya Amar Rav Ada forbids a person to place ashes on one's wound - because it resembles Kesoves Ka'aka.

(b) According to Rav Chinena Brei de'Rav Ika, the author of 'Sh'fod', 'Shefachos' and 'Gumos' is Rav Malkiyo; of 'Beluris', 'Eifer Makleh' (our case) and 'Gevinah', Rav Malkiya. According to Rav Papa, whichever case deals with a Mishnah or Beraisa, is Rav Malkiya, whatever is just a plain Machlokes Amora'im, is Rav Malkiyo. The Si'man to remember this by) 'Masnita Malkesa' (which literally means that the Mishnah or the Beraisa is a queen), reminds us that the word 'Masnita' ends with an 'a', just like 'Malkiya').

(c) They are arguing over Shefachos, which is a Mishnah. Consequently, according to Rav Papa, it must be Rav *Malkiya* who said it (and not Rav *Malkiyo*, as Rav Chinena Brei de'Rav Ika maintains)

(d) Rav Bibi bar Abaye was careful not to transgress the La'av of Kesoves Ka'aka when bloodletting. Ccording to Rav Ashi however - wherever there is a wound, it is permitted, since the wound indicates his true motives (leaving no room for suspicion).

(a) We already discussed the Mishnah's rulings regarding a Nazir who drinks wine after being warned not to. The Tana rules that a Kohen who renders himself Tamei Meis ...

1. ... all day following one warning - receives one set of Malkos.
2. ... after being warned, and then, when he is warned again, he does so again - receives one set of Malkos for each warning.

(b) He also rules someone who ...

1. ... spends all day shaving off his Pe'os or wearing Kil'ayim (Sha'atnez) - receives one set of Malkos.
2. ... following a warning, shaves one Pe'ah or wears Kil'ayim, and then, when he is warned a second time, he shaves of the other Pe'ah or transgresses the La'av of Sha'atnez again - receives one set of Malkos for each warning.

7)

(a) Our Mishnah presents a case where someone receives eight Malkos for plowing one furrow. The first Isur is that of plowing with an ox and a donkey. The Tana does not then add Malkiyos by referring to a number of oxen and donkeys - because he is looking for the maximum number of *different* La'avin that a person will transgress.

(b) When the Tana adds 've'Hein Mukdashin', regarding ...

1. ... the ox, he means - the La'av of "Lo Sa'avod bi'Vechor Shorecha" (not to work with a Bechor, incorporating all Kodshei Mizbe'ach).
2. ... the donkey - he means 'Heizid bi'Me'ilah' (deriving benefit from Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis).

(c) The fourth, fifth and sixth La'avin are Kil'ayim be'Kerem, Shevi'is and Yom-tov. The last two La'avin referred to by the Tana Kama - are a Kohen and a Nazir in a graveyard.

(a) The Rabbanan refute the opinion of Rebbi Chanina ben Chachinai, who adds that the sinner is also wearing Kil'ayim - on the grounds that this has nothing to do with plowing.

(b) And Rebbi Chanina ben Chachinai counters their argument - by pointing out that a Kohen and a Nazir in a graveyard does not constitute plowing either.

(c) Rav Bibi Amar Rebbi Yossi qualifies the Halachah in our Mishnah (concerning Kil'ayim) 'Poshet ve'Lovesh, Chayav al Kol Achas ve'Achas' - by confining it to taking off the sleeve and putting it on again.

(d) According to Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika, he actually has to remove the sleeve and put it on again. Rav Ashi however, maintains - that one transgresses the second La'av even by just waiting (after the warning) the amount of time it would take to remove the sleeve and put it on again, even he did not actually do it.

(a) Rebbi Yanai said 'ha'Chofeh (or 'ha'Mechapeh') be'Kil'ayim (which means that in the course of plowing, one covers over Kil'ayim) - Lokeh' (because of 'Zore'a').

(b) He said this - 'ba'Chaburah', on a day when the Chachamim all gathered together for a meeting or for some other purpose.

(c) When Rebbi Yochanan asked whether that is not what our Mishnah means when it says 'ha'Choresh ... u'va'Shevi'is'. Rebbi Yanai replied - that if he had not taught them the Halachah, they would probably have connected the Chiyuv to 'Mekayem Kil'ayim' (working in the field and not destroying the Kil'ayim which is there [and not because of 'Zore'a']).

(a) Resh Lakish was not impressed with Rebbi Yanai's praise of Rebbi Yochanan - because in his opinion, 'ha'Chofeh be'Kil'ayim' of our Mishnah is indeed Chayav because of 'Mekayem Kil'ayim', like the opinion of Rebbi Akiva (as we shall now see).

(b) The Beraisa says 'ha'Menachesh (someone who weeds) ve'ha'Mechapeh be'Kil'ayim, Lokeh'. The basis for Mechapeh is - 'Mekayem Kil'ayim' (like Rebbi Akiva) ...

(c) ... who actually concludes 'Af ha'Mekayem'. The Chachamim who argue with him - exempt 'ha'Mechapeh be'Kil'ayim' from Malkos (though they agree that 'Menachesh' is Chayav because of 'Zore'a').

(d) Based on the Pasuk "Behemt'cha Lo Sarbi'a Kil'ayim, Sadcha Lo Sizra Kil'ayim", Rebbi Akiva's source is - the juxtaposition of "Sadcha" to "Kil'ayim" (since that Torah should otherwise have written "Behemt'cha Kil'ayim Lo Sarbi'a ... "), from which he Darshens 'Kil'ayim Sadcho Lo' ('No Kil'ayim in your field').

(a) Ula asked Rav Nachman why the Tana omitted 'Zore'a' on Yom-Tov. For his Kashya to be relevant, he must explain 'ha'Chofeh be'Kil'ayim' (in light of the previous Sugya) - as 'Zore'a' (like Rebbi Yanai), and not as 'Mekayem' (like Resh Lakish).

(b) Ula rejected Rav Nachman's answer that the Tana omitted it because of the principle 'Tana ve'Shiyer' (the Tana learns some things, and omits others) - because the Beraisa specifically mentions the number eight.

(c) Rabah therefore ascribed the omission to the fact - that even though there is Chiluk Melachos on Shabbos (one is Chayav a Chatas for each Melachah that one transgresses in one He'elam), there is no Chiluk Melachos on Yom-Tov (incorporating the fact that if one act incorporates a number of Melachos, one will only receive one Malkos).

(d) The source for Rabah's distinction is - either because when the Torah mentions "Hav'arah" to teach us 'Chiluk Melachos', it is referring specifically to Shabbos and not to Yom-Tov; or, if we learn Chiluk Melachos from "me'Achas me'Heinah", that Pasuk pertains specifically to Chayvei K'risus (like Shabbos) and not to Chayvei La'avin (like Yom-Tov).

(e) When, following Rabah's explanation, Ula said 'Ada Tehei', he meant - that it was a good S'vara.

(a) The Beraisa prescribes - five sets of Malkos for someone who cooks a Gid ha'Nasheh in milk on Yom-Tov and then eats it.

(b) He is Chayav for eating Gid ha'Nasheh and for cooking unnecessarily on Yom-Tov - for cooking and eating meat and milk and for lighting a fire (which is an independent Melachah from cooking).

(c) Abaye asks on Rabah from this Beraisa - which prescribes two sets of Malkos for one act on Yom-Tov (and which therefore holds 'Yesh Chiluk Melachos be'Yom-Tov').

(d) To answer Abaye's Kashya, we initially establish the Beraisa by the Gid ha'Nasheh of a Neveilah, and switch the fifth Malkos from 'Hav'arah' to 'Neveilah'. We reject this answer however, based on Rebbi Chiya, quoting another Beraisa - who gives the composition of the Beraisa under discussion as three Malkos for cooking and two for eating (thereby clashing with it).

(a) So we change the switch from the La'av of Neveilah to that of the wood of an Asheirah (an idol-tree) - based on the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Yidbak be'Yadcha Me'umah min ha'Cherem".

(b) Rav Acha B'rei de'Rava asks on this from the Pasuk there "ve'Lo Savi So'eivah el Beisecha", which goes hand in hand with "ve'Lo Yidbak be'Yadcha", in which case, the Tana ought to have prescribes six Malkos, and not just five.

(c) So we finally establish the fifth set of Malkos, based on the Pasuk "va'Ashereihem Tisrefun ba'Eish ... Lo Sa'asun Kein la'Hashem Elokecha" - and the sinner used Hekdesh wood for the fire.