Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) EATING OBJECTS UNFIT FOR FOOD

(a) According to Reish Lakish, we understand why R. Shimon exempts (one who swore 'I will not eat' and ate Neveilos...) - because he holds that one is lashed for eating any amount of forbidden food, the oath does not take effect.

1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon): One is lashed for eating any amount of forbidden food; the quantity of an olive's worth only pertains to bringing a sacrifice.

(b) Question: According to R. Yochanan, why does R. Shimon exempt? (The oath should take effect, it is Kolel permitted and forbidden food!)
(c) Answer: R. Shimon argues on the principal of Kolel.

1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon): One who eats a Neveilah on Yom Kipur is not liable for eating on Yom Kipur. (If the animal died before Yom Kipur, the prohibition of eating on Yom Kipur, even though it includes all permitted food, does not apply to forbidden food. Rashi - even if it died on Yom Kipur, since it was forbidden to eat before Yom Kipur (the meat was flesh of a living animal), the prohibition of Yom Kipur does not take effect; Tosfos - it was forbidden because it was not slaughtered; Riztva - if it died on Yom Kipur, the prohibition of flesh of a living animal went away, the prohibitions of Yom Kipur and Neveilah both take effect).

(d) According to Reish Lakish, we understand why he brings a sacrifice for this oath - the oath takes effect in the positive (I will eat less than an olive's worth of Neveilos, Reish Lakish holds that the Torah permits this) and the negative.
(e) Question: According to R. Yochanan, the oath takes effect in the negative (I will not eat Neveilos or slaughtered animals), but not in the positive (an oath from Sinai already forbids him to eat Neveilos)!
(f) Version #1 - Answer: The oath takes effect in the positive regarding a rotting Neveilah (it is unfitting to eat, the Torah permits it)

1. We infer from Rava that when one specifies, eating unfitting food is considered eating.
2. Question (Rava): If one swore 'I will not eat dirt', how much dirt must he eat to be liable?

(g) Version #2 - Rashi - Answer #2 (to Question 3:c, 23B): (In both clauses, he said 'I will not eat';) in the first clause, he is exempt as Rava taught;

1. (Rava): If one swore 'I will not eat' and he ate dirt, he is exempt;
2. In the second clause, he is liable, because Neveilos, Treifos...are considered fitting to eat (they are just forbidden).

(h) Support (Rav Mari - Mishnah): If one swore 'Konam, I may not benefit from my wife if I ate today' and he ate Neveilos... she is forbidden.
(i) Rejection: That is no proof - there is different, since he ate before swearing, when he swore he considered his act to be 'eating';

1. Here, when he swears before eating, we have no source that he considers this eating!

(a) (Rava): (The general rule is that a second prohibition does not take effect on something already forbidden.) The opinion that a second prohibition takes effect when it is Kolel (it also forbids things that were previously permitted) learns from a prohibition that is Mosif (it forbids the forbidden object to more people or in more ways), which takes effect;

1. The opinion that a Kolel prohibition does not take effect on a previous prohibition, even though a Mosif prohibition takes effect, distinguishes as follows: regarding Mosif, since it puts new prohibitions on the forbidden object, it also takes effect regarding the old prohibition;

i. Regarding Kolel, the fact that new things become forbidden is no reason to put an addition prohibition on something already forbidden.

(b) (Rava): According to the opinion that a Kolel prohibition takes effect on a forbidden object, if one swore 'I will not eat figs', and later swore 'I will not eat figs or grapes', since the latter oath takes effect regarding grapes, it also takes effect regarding figs.
(c) Objection: This is obvious!
(d) Answer: One might have thought, only Kolel prohibitions of the Torah take effect on forbidden things, not a prohibition (such as an oath) which a person made by himself - Rava teaches, this is not so.

(a) Question (Rava brei d'Rabah - Mishnah): One can be liable four Chatas offerings and an Asham for eating (slightly more than) an olive's worth: a Tamei person who ate Chelev that was Nosar from Kodshim, on Yom Kipur;

1. R. Meir says, if it was also Shabbos and he took the food from a private domain and swallowed it in a public domain, he is also liable for transferring domains!
2. Chachamim: That liability is not for eating.
3. Summation of question: According to Rava, Chachamim can find a fifth Chatas: if he had sworn 'I will not eat figs or Chelev' - since the oath applies to figs, it also applies to Chelev!

(b) Answer #1: The Tana only lists prohibitions the Torah imposed, not prohibitions he put on himself.

1. Question: But one Chatas is for eating Kodshim while Tamei - he made it Kodshim!
2. Answer: No, the case is, it was a firstborn, the Torah made it Kodesh when it was born.

(c) Answer #2: The Tana only lists prohibitions which cannot be annulled (but a person can annul an oath).

1. Question: But one can annul the act of making an animal Kodesh!
2. Answer: We already established the case to be a firstborn.

(d) Answer #3: The Tana only lists liability for unvarying offerings, the sacrifice for transgressing Shevu'as Bituy is Oleh v'Yored.

1. Question: But the Chatas for a Tamei person who ate Kodshim is an Oleh v'Yored!
2. Answer: The Mishnah speaks of a Nasi; it is like R. Eliezer, who says that a Nasi brings a goat for Tum'ah of the Mikdash or Kodshim

(e) Answer #4 (Rav Ashi): The Tana only lists liability that depends on eating a certain quantity;

1. One can be liable for an oath for eating any amount (if he specifies).
2. Question: One can be liable for eating Hekdesh, even less than an olive's worth!
3. Answer: That also has a minimal quantity, it must be worth a Perutah.

(f) Answer #5 (Rav Ashi of Avirya): The Tana only lists liability for transgressions of Kares (had he sinned intentionally), transgressing an oath is only a Lav.

1. Question: The Asham is for benefit from Kodshim, which is only a Lav!
2. Answer: The Tana only lists liability for Chatas offerings for transgressions of Kares.