Previous daf

1)

(a) The Seifa of the Mishnah in Taharos (that we just established like Rebbi Eliezer, who holds S'tam Nedarim Lehakel) states 'Safek Bechoros, Echad Bechorei Adam, ve'Echad Bechorei Beheimah ... 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro Alav ha'Re'ayah'.
What is the case of Safek Bechor?

(b) The Tana concludes 'va'Asurim be'Gizah va'Avodah' (le'Chumra).
How could we reconcile this with the Mishnah in Taharos that holds 'S'tam Nedarim Lehakel'?

(c) What Kashya does Abaye pose from the Seifa on Rebbi Zeira, who established the Mishnah in Taharos like Rebbi Eliezer?

(d) On what grounds do we reject Abaye's Kashya? Why are the cases not comparable?

(a) Rebbi Meir says in a Beraisa 'Safek Mashkin Litamei Tamei, Letamei, Tahor'.
What does this mean?

(b) What is the case of 'Safek Mashkin'?

(c) Rebbi Eliezer concurs with Rebbi Meir (although he lived long before him). What does he say in another Beraisa about Tum'as Mashkin?

(d) How does he substantiate it with the testimonial of Yossi ben Yo'ezer?

(a) According to Shmuel, the 'Dachan' of Yossi ben Yo'ezer (and therefore the 'Tum'ah' of Rebbi Eliezer) refers exclusively to being Metamei others. What does Rav say?

(b) What is now the Kashya on Rebbi Eliezer? What is the discrepancy between the two statements of Rebbi Eliezer, according to Rebbi Zeira (who established the Mishnah in Taharos like Rebbi Eliezer)?

(c) Why is this no problem according to Shmuel?

(d) Why do we need to quote the Beraisa of Rebbi Meir in order to pose this Kashya? Why can we not ask from the Seifa of the Mishnah in Taharos itself, which states 'Safek Mashkin Litamei Tamei, Letamei, Tahor' on to Rebbi Eliezer, who is stringent by Safek Tum'as Mashkin?

(a) Even without Rebbi Zeira, why would we not have been able to point out a discrepancy in Rebbi Eliezer, who holds that Tum'as Mashkin is only mi'de'Rabbanan, yet he holds that 'Safek Mashkin Litamei, Tamei'?

(b) Rebbi Zeira apart, how will we reconcile Rebbi Eliezer, who is stringent with regard to Safek Mashkin with his ruling 'Lo Hikdish es ha'Coy' (even though it is a Safek d'Oraysa), neither of which is man-instigated?

(a) We have established that the author of the Mishnah in Taharos cannot be Rebbi Eliezer. So we suggest that it may be Rebbi Yehudah.
What does Rebbi Yehudah say about someone who undertakes to be a Nazir if a certain pile of produce contains a hundred Kur, but when he comes to measure it, it is no longer there?

(b) Which Tana argues with Rebbi Yehudah (and will therefore be the author of our Mishnah, which holds 'Safek Nezirus Lehachmir')?

(c) Rebbi Yehudah said in our Mishnah that S'tam T'rumah be'Galil Muteres, she'Ein Anshei Galil Makirin es T'rumas ha'Lishkah'.
What can we infer from here which clashes with the Mishnah in Taharos 'S'tam Nezirus Lehakel' (which we just established like Rebbi Yehudah)?

(d) Why do we ask this Kashya from an inference from the Seifa of our Mishnah, and not directly from the Reisha 'S'tam Terumah bi'Yehudah, Asurah' (which also implies 'Me'ayeil Inash Nafshei li'Sefeika' - Lehachmir)?

6)

(a) Rava answers that generally, Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Me'ayeil Inash Nafshei li'Sefeika', but Nezirus is different.
What makes Nezirus different?

(b) Which Korban creates the problem?

(c) How might a Safek Nazir otherwise bring his Shelamim or Olah (despite the fact that he may not be a Nazir)?

(d) In view of the Gemara in Nazir (that a Nazir who shaved on any one of his three Korbanos has fulfilled his duty), why do we not declare him a Nazir, allowing him to bring his Olah and Shelamim with the above stipulation?

(a) Rav Huna bar Yehudah asked Rava what the Din would be in the equivalent case of a Safek Nazir who undertook to be a Nazir Olam (whose Nezirus does not terminate, and who will therefore not need to bring the Korbanos). What did Rava reply?

(b) And what did he reply when Rav Huna bar Yehudah asked him the same She'eilah about a Safek Nezir Shimshon, to whom the above concession will not apply?

(c) What did Rav Huna bar Yehudah retort?

(d) To which Rava replied 'I Tanya, Tanya'.
How will we reconcile this with Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, who forbids S'tam Nedarim (from the inference of 'she'Ein Anshei Galil Makirim T'rumas ha'Lishkah')?

(a) Rav Ashi tries to establish the Beraisa of Safek Nezir Shimshon ('Hareini Ne'zir Shimshon Im Yesh bi'Kri ha'Zeh Mei'ah Kur, ve'Halach u'Matza she'Nignav ... Rebbi Yehudah Matir [ve'Rebbi Shimon Oser']) like Rebbi Tarfon.
What does Rebbi Tarfon say?

(b) Then why does the Tana need to present a case when the produce was stolen, seeing as (according to Rebbi Tarfon) the same would apply even if it was still there?

(c) Why on principle, would it have been preferable to present a case when the produce was still there, to teach us the extent of Rebbi Yehudah's Chidush?

(d) Then why did the Tana not do so?

(a) We infer from Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah 'S'tam T'rumah ... be'Galil Muteres, she'Ein Anshei Galil Makirin es T'rumas ha'Lishkah' that 'S'tam Nedarim Lehachmir'. What can we infer from the Seifa 'S'tam Charamim ... u've'Galil Asurin, she'Ein Anshei ha'Galil Makirin es Chermei ha'Cohanim'?

(b) How do we reconcile the two inferences?

(c) We have already explained why the Reisha ('S'tam T'rumah bi'Yehudah Asurah') does not necessarily clash directly with the Seifa ('S'tam Charamim bi'Yehudah Mutarim' - 'Safeik Nedarim Lehakel'), because we might ascribe it to the fact that the Anshei Yehudah do not refer to T'rumas ha'Goren as T'rumah S'tam - in which case there is no Safek). Even if this were not so (and the reason in the Reisha was 'Safek Nedarim Lehachmir'), how might we establish the reason of the Seifa, so that it should not clash with the Reisha?

(d) What will ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah hold regarding S'tam Charamim in Yehudah?
2. ... Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok hold regarding S'tam T'rumah in Yehudah?

(a) We just established that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'S'tam Nedarim Lehachmir' and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok, 'S'tam Nedarim Lehakel.
Then why does Rebbi Yehudah present specifically the case of T'rumah, and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok, that of Charamim. Why did they both not speak either by the one or by the other?

(b) And why in the previous Sugya, did we establish the Mishnah 'S'tam Nezirus Lehakel' like Rebbi Yehudah, when we might just as well have established it like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok?

(c) What is the Halachah regarding S'tam Nedarim?

Next daf