Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Ami, whose proof from Rav Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Yochanan (that when what grows becomes a majority, it is Mevatel the Ikar) has been refuted, makes a further attempt at resolving Yishmael Ish K'far Yama's She'eilah, from Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa.
According to Rebbi Shimon, why did the Chachamim not give a Shiur (to become Batel) to Tevel, Ma'aser Sheini, Hekdesh and Chadash on the one hand, but they did give a Shiur to Terumah, Terumas Ma'aser, Chalah, Orlah and K'lai ha'Kerem, on the other?

(b) What makes ...

1. ... Tevel ...
2. ... Ma'aser Sheini and Hekdesh ...
3. ... Chadash ... a Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin?

(c) Is the Tana talking about becoming Bateil in the same kind as itself, in a different kind, or both?

(d) What reason does the Sugya in Avodah-Zarah give for Tevel not becoming Bateil?

(a) With regard to Terumah, Terumas Ma'aser and Chalah, why is the fact that one can be Sho'el (have them rescinded through a Chacham) not place them in the category of 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin'?

(b) What is the Shiur Bitul be'Minan (in the same kind), regarding ...

1. ... Terumah, Terumas Ma'aser and Chalah?
2. ... Orlah and K'lai ha'Kerem?

(c) What will be the Shiur of all of these, should they become mixed in she'Lo be'Minan?

(a) The Mishnah in Shevi'is rules 'ha'Shevi'is Oseres Kol-she'Hu be'Minah'. Apart from Shevi'is-fruit becoming mixed together with other fruit, what is the Mishnah referring to?

(b) Considering that Shevi'is is a 'Davar she'Ein Lo Matirin', how will Rebbi Shimon (who does not argue with the Rabbanan there) establish the Beraisa?

(c) What will be the Din regarding fruit that grows after the time of Bi'ur, according to him?

(a) What is Rebbi Ami trying to prove from the Beraisa of Rebbi Shimon?

(b) How can Rebbi Ami prove from Rebbi Shimon that what grows is not drawn after the Ikar from the fact that it is Mevatel it (because if it was not Mevatel it, it would be drawn after it)? Perhaps it would neither be Mevatel the Ikar, nor drawn after it, either?

(c) How do we reject this proof too? Why is there no proof from Rebbi Shimon that an onion of Sh'mitah that is re-planted in the eighth year is Mevatel the Isur?

(d) Having already used this S'vara to reject the previous proof, why did we persist in citing this Beraisa, which we would be bound to reject in the same way?

(a) So he tries to resolve the She'eilah from another Mishnah in Shevi'is. What does the Tana say there with regard to sixth-year onions on which rain fell and which subsequently grew, if their leaves were ...

1. ... bordering on black?
2. ... green?

(b) How does Rebbi Chananya ben Antignos gauge that the onions grew well in the Sh'mitah, and are therefore forbidden?

(c) What does he say about the same situation on Motza'ei Shevi'is?

(d) How do we establish the Mishnah in order to reject Rebbi Ami's proof from here too (that what grows is not Bateil to the Ikar, and even renders it Bateil)?

6)

(a) The Tana Kama in a Beraisa says that someone who is weeding among Chasi'os with a Kuti, may eat from them casually, and is obligated to Ma'aser them.
What are Chasi'os?

(b) Why might we have thought that they are forbidden?

(c) The concession to eat them might be based on the fact that the obligation to Ma'aser them is only mi'de'Rabbanan.
To what else might we ascribe it?

(a) What does Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar (in the same Beraisa) say with regard to a Yisrael who is suspected of breaking the Sh'mitah?

(b) How does Rebbi Ami finally resolve Yishmael Ish K'far Yama's She'eilah from there?

(c) How do we know that Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar is not speaking about ...

1. ... a species whose seeds decompose before growing?
2. ... someone who pounded the onions before planting them?
3. ... a case when the onions are mixed with other species?

(d) How does Rebbi Yitzchak explain the reason for this Mishnah (based on the Pasuk in Behar "ve'Shavsah ha'Aretz Shabbos la'Hashem") so that the respective opinions of Rebbi Yochanan ('Yaldah she'Savchah bi'Zekeinah ... Asur') and Rebbi Yonasan ('Batzel she'Nat'o be'Kerem ... Asur') should not clash with it?

(a) We just learned that the Isur of Sh'mitah is based in the land.
What is the basis of the Isur of ...

1. ... Orlah?
2. ... Kil'ayim?

(b) We have learned in a Beraisa 'Litra Ma'aser Tevel she'Zar'ah be'Karka ve'Hishbichah, ve'Harei Hu ke'Eser Litrin, Chayeves be'Ma'aser' u'va'Shevi'is'.
What are the ramifications of ...

1. ... 'Chayeves be'Ma'aser'?
2. ... u'va'Shevi'is'?
3. ... the conclusion of this Beraisa 've'Osah Litra Me'aser Alehah mi'Makom Acher le'Fi Cheshbon'? Why should he not Ma'aser from the within the ten Litrin themselves?

(c) What will be the problem according to our initial understanding, that the obligation to Ma'aser is based in the land?

(d) How do we resolve this problem? If the obligation to Ma'aser is not based in the land, then on what *is* it based?

Next daf