Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE ARGUMENT OF R. ELIEZER AND R. AKIVA

(a) Question: What does R. Eliezer learn from "Bah"
(b) Answer: This excludes one who was Misasek (he intended to do a permitted activity, and mistakenly did a different action which is forbidden).
(c) Answer #2 (to Question 3:b, 18B - R. Yochanan and Rav Sheshes): They do not argue about the law, only about how we derive it.

1. Since Rav Sheshes held that they do not argue about the law, he was not careful and sometimes switched the opinions of R. Eliezer and R. Akiva.

(a) Question (Rava): If someone forgot that he was Tamei *and* the place of the Mikdash (or that this meat is Kodesh), what is the law (according to R. Eliezer and R. Akiva, that one is liable for forgetting the Tum'ah, not for forgetting the Mikdash)?
(b) Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): Since he forgot the Tum'ah, he is liable.

1. Question: Why not say the contrary, since he forgot the Mikdash, he is exempt!

(c) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): It depends: if he would have refrained had he remembered the Tum'ah, this is like forgetting the Tum'ah, he is liable;

1. If he would have refrained had he remembered the Mikdash, this is like forgetting the Mikdash, he is exempt.

(d) Objection (Ravina): If he only remembered one of them, he would not refrain!
(e) Answer #3 (Ravina): Rather, in either case he is exempt.
(f) (Beraisa): There are two paths, somewhere along one of them there is a Mes under the ground spanning the entire width of the path, anyone who walks on that path will become Tamei.

1. If a man walked on one path, and later on the other path, and then entered the Mikdash, he is liable (since he is surely Tamei);
2. If he man walked on one path, entered the Mikdash, was sprinkled (with Mei Chatas, to become Tahor with certainty), walked on the other path and entered the Mikdash, he is liable (since one of the times he entered the Mikdash he was Tamei);
3. R. Shimon exempts him;
4. R. Shimon ben Yehudah cites R. Shimon to say that he is exempt in every case.

(g) Question: Does R. Shimon ben Yehudah exempt even in the first case? No matter which path is Tamei, he was Tamei when he entered the Mikdash!

(h) Answer (Rava): The case is, when he walked on the second path he forgot that he had walked on the first path, so he never knew for sure that he was Tamei.

1. The first Tana holds (according to R. Shimon) that partial knowledge is like full knowledge (that he was Tamei);
2. R. Shimon ben Yehudah holds (according to R. Shimon) that partial knowledge is not like full knowledge.

(i) (Beraisa): If he man walked on one path, entered the Mikdash, was sprinkled, walked on the other path and entered the Mikdash, he is liable; R. Shimon exempts him.
(j) Question: Why does the first Tana obligate him - each time he entered the Mikdash, he only knew (initially and forgot) that he was *doubtfully* Tamei!
(k) Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): Here, knowledge of a doubt is considered like (full) knowledge;
(l) Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): The Beraisa is R. Yishmael, who does not require initial knowledge.
(m) Question: R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish both contradict what they said elsewhere!

1. (Beraisa): A person unknowingly ate doubtful Chelev, then found out (that he ate doubtful Chelev); he again ate and found out.
2. Rebbi: Just as a person brings a Chatas for each time he (unknowingly) ate (definite) Chelev (after having learned of his previous mistake), so he brings an Asham Taluy (doubtful guilt-offering) for each time he (unknowingly) ate doubtful Chelev (after having learned);
3. R. Shimon ben Yehudah and R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon say, he only brings one Asham Taluy;

i. "Al Shigegaso Asher Shagag" - the Torah says that one Asham Taluy atones for many mistakes.

4. (Reish Lakish): Rebbi holds that Yedi'ah that one doubtfully transgressed separates, and obligates him to bring separate Chatas offerings (if he later leans that he truly transgressed) for his transgressions before the Yedi'ah and after, just as it separates regarding Asham Taluy (it obligates him to bring another Asham for doubtful transgressions after the Yedi'ah);
5. (R. Yochanan): Just as definite Yedi'ah separates regarding Chatas, doubtful Yedi'ah separates regarding Asham.

(n) Ap1 We can resolve the contradiction in R. Yochanan: we only *inferred* that Yedi'ah is needed regarding Tum'ah from "V'Nelam", therefore doubtful Yedi'ah is considered Yedi'ah;

1. Regarding Chatas, it explicitly says "O Hoda Elav", full Yedi'ah is needed.

(o) Question: But if Reish Lakish holds (according to Rebbi) that doubtful Yedi'ah is considered Yedi'ah (even regarding Chatas), why did he establish the Beraisa like R. Yishmael (who does not require initial Yedi'ah), it could be (like Chachamim, who require initial Yedi'ah) according to Rebbi!
(p) Answer: Reish Lakish wanted to teach that R. Yishmael does not require initial Yedi'ah.
(q) Objection: This is obvious! Since he expounds "v'Nelam" to obligate for forgetting the Mikdash, he has no source to require initial Yedi'ah!
(r) Answer: One might have thought, he has no source from the verses, but he has a tradition from Moshe from Sinai to require it;

1. Reish Lakish teaches, this is not so.

3) THE PRIMARY OATHS

(a) (Mishnah): There are two primary kinds of Shevu'os (of Bituy), there are four in all;

1. The two primary kinds are 'I swear that I will eat' and 'I swear that I will not eat';
2. The other two are 'I swear that I ate' and 'I swear that I did not eat'.

(b) R. Akiva says, if one swore 'I will not eat' and he ate any amount, he is liable;
(c) Chachamim: We never find that someone is liable for eating any amount!
(d) R. Akiva: We never find that someone brings a sacrifice for speaking! (The sacrifice is for transgressing his words - his intention was not to eat at all, if he eats any amount he transgressed!)
(e) (Gemara) Inference: Our Mishnah teaches that 'She'Ochel' means 'I will eat'.

1. Contradiction (Beraisa (Tosfos - an abridged form of a Mishnah)): 'I swear that I will not eat your food' or 'I swear She'Ochel (your food)' or 'I do not swear that I will not eat' - he is forbidden to eat;