Previous daf

1)

(a) What does our Mishnah say about an animal that one finds in ...

1. ... a stable?
2. ... the street"?

(b) What does the Tana learn from the Pasuk "Azov Ta'azov *Imo*"?

(c) In which case will this not apply?

(d) We have already discussed the Machlokes between the Rabbanan and Rebbi Shimon regarding P'rikah and Te'inah.
What does Rebbi Yossi Hagelili say about an animal that has been overloaded?

(a) Why does Rava explain that the stable in our Mishnah is not ...

1. ... completely unguarded?
2. ... firmly locked?

(b) Rebbi Yitzchak confines 'Matz'ah be'Refes Eino Chayav' to a stable that is inside the T'chum (Shabbos).
What do we extrapolate from there with regard to finding it in the Reshus ha'Rabim?

(c) In the second Lashon, he confines the Seifa 'bi'Reshus ha'Rabim Chayav Bah' to where he finds it outside the T'chum.
What do we extrapolate from there with regard to finding it in a stable?

(a) Our Mishnah forbids a Kohen to obey his father if he orders him to enter a Beis ha'Kevaros to return an Aveidah, or even a Yisrael if his father orders him not to return an Aveidah that he comes across.
From which Pasuk in Kedoshim does the Tana of the Beraisa learn this?

(b) Seeing as both Tum'as Kohen and not returning an Aveidah involve an Asei and a Lo Sa'aseh, why is it not obvious that we apply the principle 'Ein Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh va'Asei'?

(c) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah states 'Mitzvah min ha'Torah li'F'rok Aval Lo Li't'on'. This cannot be taken literally in light of the Pasuk "Hakem Takim".
Then what does the Tana mean?

(a) We have already explained why P'rikah is more obvious than Te'inah (and we will shortly elaborate further).
How does the Tana Kama interpret ...

1. ... "Rovetz Tachas Masa'o"?
2. ... "Noflin ba'Derech"?

(b) What would we have thought had the Torah only written "Hakem Takim"?

(c) Why is this not so obvious according to Rebbi Shimon? How does *he* interpret "Noflin ba'Derech"?

5)

(a) How does Rava try to extrapolate that Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim is d'Oraysa from ...

1. ... the Tana Kama of our Mishnah who learns that P'rikah is 'better' than Te'inah?
2. ... Rebbi Shimon, even though he does not differentiate between them?

(b) We refute the 'Kal va'Chomer' however, by applying it to something else. If the 'Kal va'Chomer' is not because of Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim, then what is it because of?

(c) How do we refute this Pircha? Why can the 'Kal va'Chomer not be because of Chesaron Kis?

(d) We try to prove further from the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yossi Hagelili in our Mishnah ('Im Hayah Alav Yeser al Masa'o ... ') and the Rabbanan that Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim must be d'Oraysa.
How do we ...

1. ... attempts to prove it from there?
2. ... refute the proof? If not because of Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim, and bearing in mind that the Torah writes "Tachas Masa'o", why else might the Rabanan incorporate an overloaded animal in the obligation?

(a) What do we then try to prove from the Seifa of our Mishnah, which precludes an animal whose owner refuses to help unload his animal from the Mitzvah?

(b) How do we refute this proof, too? What might 'Patur' mean?

(a) The Beraisa which obligates helping unload the animal of a Nochri also implies that Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim is d'Oraysa.
How do we refute this proof too?

(b) We even prove from the Seifa, which exempts helping the same animal if it is laden with wine, that Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim cannot be d'Oraysa.
Why will 'Eivah' not apply there?

(c) How do we amend the Beraisa to refute this proof that Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim is only de'Rabbanan?

(a) The Beraisa cites "ve'Chadalta" in a case where the animal belongs to a Nochri and the load to a Jew, absolving one from the obligation of helping him.
How do we establish the case, to repudiate the proof that Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim is de'Rabbanan?

(b) In that case, why does the Tana continue 'Behemas Yisrael, u'Mas'uy Oved-Kochavim, "Azov Ta'azov" '?

(c) Then why is one not Chayav in the Reisha for the same reason?

(d) On what basis do we draw such a distinction?

(a) On what grounds do we totally reject the current interpretation of the Beraisa (establishing it by Te'inah)?

(b) How do we then re-learn the Beraisa after reinstating it by P'rikah? Who must be the author?

(c) What does the Beraisa say about someone who loves loading but detests unloading and who now comes across one person whose animal needs to be loaded, and another whose animal needs to be unloaded?

(d) Is this a proof that Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim is not d'Oraysa?

(a) The Pasuk which discusses P'rikah specifically refers to the donkey belonging to someone whom one hates.
According to our initial understanding of a second Beraisa, what does the Tana mean when he says 'Sonei Yisrael, ve'Lo Sonei Oved-Kochavim'?

(b) What do we attempt to prove from here?

(c) To refute this proof, how do we establish the case of 'Sonei' in the Beraisa?

Next daf