Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rav Bibi Amar Resh Lakish, Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan argue specifically by grains of wheat, but by flour, even Rebbi Shimon will agree that the Shiur is a ke'Zayis. According to Rebbi Yirmiyah Amar Resh Lakish - Rebbi Shimon argues by flour too.

(b) Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah, who said to the Rabbanan 'Af Chitah Achas ke'Biryasah', implying that he agrees with them by flour - appears to corroborate the opinion of Rav Bibi.

(c) We refute this proof however, on the grounds - that Rebbi Shimon himself might well not hold of a Shiur at all, only he was asking the Rabbanan whether they would not at least concede that a whole grain is a 'Beryah' (a complete entity), which would not require a Shiur ...

(d) ... to which they replied in the negative, since they only consider something that has a Neshamah a Beryah (see Tosfos).

3)

(a) Our Mishnah rules that a Kohen who eats Bikurim before having read the Parshah, Kodshei Kodshim outside the hangings of the Azarah (in the time of the Mishkan), and even a Yisrael who eats Kodshim Kalim or Ma'aser Sheini outside the walls of Yerushalayim - are all Chayav Malkos.

(b) Someone who breaks a bone of a Tahor Pesach is Chayav Malkos - whereas someone who either leaves over part of a Tahor Pesach or who breaks a bone of a Tamei one is Patur.

(c) The reason that someone who leaves over part of a Tahor Pesach is Patur is - either because it is a La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei, or because it is a La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh, or because it is a Hasra'as Safek (as we learned above).

(d) According to Rebbi Yehudah, someone who takes a mother bird together with its young receives Malkos and does not need to send the mother away - because he considers it a 'La'av she'Kadmo Asei; whereas according to the Chachamim, he sends away the mother, and is Patur - because in their opinion, it is a La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei (as we learned above).

(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah establishes the author of our Mishnah (that 'Keri'ah' [reading the Parshah of "Arami Oved Avi"] is crucial to the Mitzvah) as Rebbi Akiva S'timta'ah, - which means - that he was the author of many of the S'tam Mishnahs learned by Rebbi.

(b) The Rabbanan hold - that 'Hanachah' (placing the Bikurim beside the Mizbe'ach is crucial, and not 'Keri'ah').

(c) Despite the fact that the Tana who specifically holds that reading is crucial is Rebbi Shimon, Rebbi Yochanan preferred to establish Rebbi Akiva as the author of our Mishnah - to teach us that Rebbi Akiva (the ultimate source of most S'tam Mishnah's and Beraisos) holds like Rebbi Shimon in this point.

(a) In the Pasuk "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha Ma'asar Degancha ... " (which refers to Ma'aser Sheini), Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, interprets "u'Serumas Yadecha" (the last item in the Pasuk) - as Bikurim.

(b) He declines to interpret it as the prohibition of eating Bikurim outside the walls of Yerushalayim (which the Pasuk is basically talking about) - because we already know that from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Ma'aser.

(c) The Pasuk is referring to - a Kohen eating Bikurim before the 'Keri'ah'.

(d) The Pasuk ends with "ve'Nidvosecha u'Serumas Yadecha", and Rebbi Shimon interprets "Nidvosecha" as Todah and Shelamim. By the same logic as we just applied to Bikurim, we do not require a Pasuk to forbid eating them outside the walls of Yerushalayim, and the Pasuk is coming to prohibit - eating them before the Zerikas ha'Dam (the sprinkling of the blood).

(a) "u'Vechoros ... " (mentioned immediately after Ma'aser Sheini) is not needed to teach us Chutz le'Chomah (because we know it from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Ma'aser) or for eating them before the Zerikas ha'Dam ('Kal va'Chomer' from Shelamim). In fact, it is coming to teach us - the prohibition of a Zar eating it even after the Zerikah.

(b) ... "Bekarcha ve'Tzoncha" comes to include Chatas ve'Asham, says Rebbi Shimon. Seeing as, following the same pattern, no Pasuk is needed for Chutz le'Chomah, Lifnei Zerikah, or even to forbid a Zar from eating them after Zerikah, the Pasuk is coming to forbid a Kohen to eat them outside the hangings of the Chatzer.

(c) Rebbi Shimon finally learns from "Nedarecha" - that anyone (even a Kohen) is Chayav if he eats a piece of Olah, even after the Zerikah and even in the Azarah.

(d) Todah and Shelamim, Chatas, Asham and Olah, besides the fact that they are all included in the La'av of Chutz le'Chomah - all have an Isur Asei.

7)

(a) Rava said - that when a woman gives birth to a son, it should be to a son like Rebbi Shimon.

(b) Rebbi Shimon learned Bikurim from Ma'aser with a 'Kal va'Chomer', because Bikurim are forbidden to Zarim (which Ma'aser is not). The Chumra of ...

1. ... Todah and Shelamim over Ma'aser constitutes - the blood and the Emurin being brought on the Mizbe'ach (whereas nothing of Ma'aser is).
2. ... Bechor over Todah and Shelamim constitutes - its Kedushah from birth.
3. ... Chatas and Asham over Bechor constitutes - the fact that they are Kodshei Kodshim (whereas Bechor is Kodshim Kalim).
4. ... Olah over Chatas ve'Asham constitutes - the Olah going on the Mizbe'ach in its entirety.

(c) Rava asks a Pircha on each of these 'Kal va'Chomers. Ma'aser is more stringent that Bikurim inasmuch as it is Asur to an Onan (which Bikurim are not). The stringency of ...

1. ... Ma'aser over Todah and Shelamim lies in the fact - that it requires minted money for its redemption.
2. ... Todah and Shelamim over Bechor - lies in the fact that they require Semichah (leaning the hands) Nesachim (a wine-offering) and Tenufas Chazeh ve'Shok (waving the chest and the right calf).
3. ... Bechor over Chatas and Asham - is that its Kedushah is from birth.
4. ... Chatas ve'Asham over Olah - is that they atone.

(d) All the Korbanos in fact, are more stringent than Olah - inasmuch as there are two Achilos, Achilas Adam and Achilas Mizbe'ach.

(a) In this way, all the 'Kal va'Chomers' of Rebbi Shimon fall away. Rava nevertheless praised Rebbi Shimon - because according to his opinion, he changed the order of the items in the Pasuk wisely (so that each one enjoys the maximum Chidush that fits it.

(b) For example, the problem with beginning with Bechor (which the Torah mentions first after Ma'aser) would be - that, since we would not yet know the Din of Lifnei Zerikah by Todah u'Shelamim, we would have to use "Bechoros" to teach us Bechor Lifnei Zerikah, and we would therefore not know the prohibition of a Zar eating Bechor even after Zerikah.

(c) The basic problem with Rebbi Shimon applying the concept of 'Kal va'Chomer' altogether is - the principle of 'Ein Mazhirin min ha'Din (which does not permit Darshening a 'Kal va'Chomer' for Malkos).

(d) We do not answer that Rebbi Shimon holds like Rebbi Yitzchak, who holds 'Onshin min ha'Din' - because even those who hold 'Onshin min ha'Din' (to learn Misah, after we already have an Azharah), concede that 'Ein Mazhirin min ha'Din'.

(a) So Rava establishes Rebbi Shimon to mean 'Isura be'Alma' (but no Malkos). Rava himself however, says - that a Zar who eats a piece of Olah before the Zerikah outside the walls of Yerushalayim, receives five sets of Malkos ...

(b) ... Chutz le'Chomah (Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser), Lifnei Zerikah ('Kal va'Chomer' from Torah u'Shelamim), Zar ('Kal va'Chomer' from Bechor), outside the Azarah ('Kal va'Chomer' from Chatas ve'Asham), and eating Olah (for which even a Kohen is Chayav).

(c) Initially, we resolve the apparent discrepancy in Rava's own words - by modifying 'Lokeh' to mean five Isurin.

(d) We ask on this from our Mishnah however - where we learned that someone who eats Bikurim before the Keri'ah and Kodshei Kodshim outside the hangings of the Azarah receives Malkos.