Previous daf

1)

(a) We just concluded that Rebbi Meir, who holds that someone who stole and Shechted on Shabbos or to Avodah-Zarah, or who stole a Shor ha'Niskal (an ox that killed and that had to be stoned) is Chayav to pay, is speaking when it was the thief's Sh'li'ach who performed the Sh'chitah.
What problem do we now have with the Rabbanan who argue with Rebbi Meir?

(b) So we establish the Rabbanan like Rebbi Shimon.
What does Rebbi Shimon say?

(c) The Shechitah of an ox that was worshipped is invalid because Avodah-Zarah is called "Zivchei Meisim" (Tehilim).
But why should that of a Shor ha'Niskal be invalid?

(a) The Mishnah in Bava Kama rules that if someone Shechts on Yom Kipur, his Shechitah is valid.
What will the Din be if he Shechts on Shabbos?

(b) What problem does this create with the Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir?

(c) We therefore establish the Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir as Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sand'lar.
What does *he* say?

(d) What does he learn from the Pasuk in Ki Sisa ...

1. ... "u'Sh'martem es ha'Shabbos, Ki Kodesh Hi"?
2. ... "Lachem"?
3. ... "Mechalelehah Mos Yamus"?

(a) According to Rebbi Meir, someone who cooks ...

1. ... be'Shogeg on Shabbos, may eat the food even on that day.
   What does Rebbi Yehudah say (see Tosfos DH 'ha'Mevashel')?
2. ... be'Meizid, neither he nor anybody else is permitted to eat it until Motza'ei Shabbos.
   What does Rebbi Yehudah say?

(b) What does Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sand'lar hold regarding someone who cooked on Shabbos be'Shogeg?

(c) Rav Acha and Ravina argue over Ma'aseh Shabos according to Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sand'lar. In the opinion of one of them, Ma'aseh Shabbos is only de'Rabbanan.
Why should it not be d'Oraysa, in spite of the Pasuk "Ki Kodesh Ki" (or perhaps because of it)?

(d) If it is only de'Rabbanan, how will we explain the Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir? Why is the thief not Chayav if his Sh'li'ach Shechted the stolen animal on Shabbos?

(a) We learned above that Rebbi Meir obligates a thief to pay four or five times, even though his Sh'li'ach Shechted it to Avodah-Zarah. From which stage may one not derive benefit from an animal that one Shechts to Avodah-Zarah?

(b) What is then the problem with the thief having to pay four or five times?

(c) How does Rava establish the Beraisa in order to answer this Kashya?

(d) What similar problem do we have with Rebbi Meir's ruling, that the thief also has to pay four or five times if the animal was a Shor ha'Niskal?

(a) Rava establishes the second ruling of Rebbi Meir when the thief stole the animal from the house of a Shomer Sachar (who is obligated to pay for theft).
What is the full case? Which two incidents occurred with regard to the animal in the house of the Shomer?

(b) Rabah also establishes Rebbi Meir both like Rebbi Ya'akov and like Rebbi Shimon.
What does Rebbi Shimon say with regard to someone who steals someone's animal which is Hekdesh?

(c) What does Rebbi Ya'akov hold?

(d) How does all this resolve our problem?

(a) Rabah establishes Rebbi Meir even when the thief himself Shechted the animal.
Why then, is he obligated to pay, in spite of the fact that he is Chayav Misah?

(b) How do we know that the author of this statement (and those that follow) is Rabah and not Rava?

7)

(a) What does Rabah say with regard to paying four times if someone Shechted a kid-goat on Shabbos ...

1. ... that he had stolen during the week?
2. ... that he stole on Shabbos?

(b) Why, in the later case, should he not pay three times (for Shechting the goat)?

(c) Like which Tana does Rabah hold?

(d) Rabah issues the same rulings with regard to someone who steals an animal and then Shechts it in the tunnel through which he is carrying it (depending upon whether he had stolen it before or only at that moment). Why does he need to teach us the above Halachah with regard to both Shabbos and a tunnel? Why would we not have been able to learn that the Chiyuv Misah ...

1. ... in the tunnel absolves him from paying, from Shabbos?
2. ... on Shabbos absolves him from paying, from the tunnel?

(a) Rav Papa rules that if a thief Shechts an animal on Shabbos that he stole before Shabbos, he is Chayav to pay, whereas had he borrowed the same animal, rather than stolen it, he would be Patur.
Why can the latter case not be speaking about paying four or five times?

(b) What is Rav Papa coming to teach us that we do not know already?

(c) What did Rav Papa rule with regard to the obligations of a Sho'el, that makes this Chidush necessary?

(a) Rava rules that if someone dies, leaving his heirs a borrowed cow, they are permitted to use it until the period of borrowing expires.
Are they obligated to pay should the cow die?

(b) What happens if, believing the cow to have been their father's, they Shecht and eat it? How much will they be obligated to pay?

(a) Rava concludes with the statement that if their father left them land, they are obligated to pay.
This might come to qualify his first statement (that even if the borrowed cow dies, they are obligated to pay in this case), and certainly his second one (if they unknowingly Shechted and ate the animal, to teach us that they will be obligated to pay the full value). How else might we interpret Rava's statement?

(b) What is Rava's reason if it refers to ...

1. ... his first statement?
2. ... his second statement?

(c) How do these two explanations tie up with Rav Papa above (in 8)?

(a) We learned above that Rebbi Yochanan establishes our Mishnah by a rapist who was not warned (which explains why he has to pay), whereas Resh Lakish establishes it according to Rebbi Meir (who holds 'Lokeh u'Meshalem').
Why does ...

1. ... Rebbi Yochanan decline to learn like Resh Lakish?
2. ... Resh Lakish decline to learn like Rebbi Yochanan?

(b) What is the basis of their dispute in this latter case?

Next daf