Previous daf

1) The Tana of our Mishnah states 'Konem Peiros ha'Eilu Alai ... ', Asur be'Chilufeihen u've'Giduleihen'. This would not be the case if he said 'Konem Te'einim va'Anavim Alai'.
Why the difference?

2)

(a) In Perek ha'Shutfin, Rami bar Chama asked whether, if someone declared 'Konem Peiros ha'Eilu al P'loni', the exchange of the fruit will be forbidden too.
What were the two sides to the She'eilah?

(b) Bearing in mind that Rami bar Chama did not ask whether 'Eilu' is Dafka or not, what problem does this create with regard to our Mishnah?

(c) We conclude that in fact, 'Eilu' is Dafka.
What does the Tana of our Mishnah teach us with the word 'Eilu' that we do not already know from the principle 'Chilufin ke'Gidulin'?

(d) Then how will we explain Rami bar Chama's She'eilah?

(a) The Tana continues 'she'Eini Ochel, she'Eini To'em, Mutar be'Chilufeihen u've'Giduleihen'.
Seeing as this Lashon implies an inclusion, on what grounds does it exclude Chilufin and Gidulin?

(b) The inference from the above prohibition regarding the Gidulin is confined to something whose seeds decompose.
What Halachah can we infer from it, which would differ with regard to something whose seeds do not?

(c) On what basis does the Tana ...

1. ... forbid the Gidulin of something whose seeds decompose (despite the fact that nothing remains of the original Isur)?
2. ... permit the Gidulei Gidulin of something whose seeds decompose?

(d) In that case, why does he forbid Gidulei Gidulin by something whose seeds do not decompose?

(a) The Tana then repeats the same Halachah with regard to someone who says to his wife 'Konem Ma'asei Yedei Ishti Alai ... '.
Why does he find it necessary to do this?

(b) This is not a case of forbidding something that is non-existent (seeing as the work of her hands are not yet in the world), because it might speak when the husband declared a Konem his wife's hands vis-a-vis the work that she will produce.
How else might we answer the Kashya?

(c) What does Rabeinu Yonah comment about this Halachah, in a case where the wife then ground wheat, baked bread and sold it?

(a) If a man says to his wife 'she'At Osah Eini Ochel ad ha'Pesach', he is permitted to benefit after Pesach, from whatever she produces; whereas if he says 'she'At Osah ad ha'Pesach Eini Ochel', he is not.
What is the Chidush? Why is this not obvious?

(b) What will be the Din if a husband says to his wife 'she'At Nehenis Li ad ha'Pesach Im Holeches At le'Veis Avich ad ha'Chag' if she went to her father's house ...

1. ... before Pesach?
2. ... after Pesach?

(c) And what will be the Din if the husband says to his wife 'she'At Nehenis Li ad ha'Chag Im Holeches At le'Veis Avich ad ha'Pesach' if she went to her father's house ...

1. ... before Pesach?
2. ... after Pesach?

6)

(a) The Beraisa cites the She'eilah of Yishmael Ish K'far Yama (or de'Yama). What did he once bring with him to the Beis ha'Medrash?

(b) He asked whether the majority that grew be'Heter negated the part that grew be'Isur or not.
What is the basis of his She'eilah?

(c) How else could he have presented it?

(d) Is there any significance in the fact that he asked it the way he did?

(a) Initially, Rebbi Ami did not know the answer. Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha though, resolved the She'eilah from a statement quoted from Rebbi Yanai. What did Rebbi Yanai say about an onion of Terumah that one planted in a case when, what subsequently grew was in excess of the original onion?

(b) What did he mean when he said 'Mutar'? Did that mean that the onion was Chulin?

(c) On what grounds did Rebbi Yirmiyah (or Rebbi Zerika) object to Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha's proof?

(a) If one cut down a young tree (of less than three years) and grafted it in an old tree ...

1. ... which had no fruit currently growing on it, what does the Gemara in Sotah say with regard to it?
2. ... which had fruit growing on it, what does Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan say about it?

(b) What does Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini Amar Rebbi Yonasan say with regard to an onion that one planted in a vineyard after the vineyard has been uprooted?

(a) When the She'eilah came back to Rebbi Ami, he resolved it from a statement by Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Yochanan.
What did *he* say about a 'Litra' of onions that had already been Ma'asered and that one re-sowed? What does Rebbi Ami prove from there?

(b) Why does Rebbi Yitzchak speak about sowing the onions rather than of planting them?

(c) How can Rebbi Yitzchak quote Rebbi Yochanan as saying that the growth is Mevateil the Ikar, when earlier, regarding the Din of Orlah, Rebbi Avahu quoted him as saying that it does not?

(d) On what grounds do we reject Rebbi Ami's proof from Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Yochanan?

(a) At first, this appears to be a Chumra that will end up being a Kula. What would be the problem if one then separated Ma'aser ...

1. ... from the onions themselves?
2. ... from an external source?

(b) Why, in fact, is this not a Kashya?

Next daf