Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Chizkiyah and Ula in the previous Sugya, who established the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Akiva by Sheretz u'Neveilah'. According to him, there is no dispute. They simply argue over the source, but agree that one is Chayav a Korban Oleh ve'Yored in a case of He'elam Tum'ah, but Patur by He'elam Mikdash ve'Kodesh.

(b) We know that Rav Sheishes agrees with Rebbi Yochanan - from the fact that he would sometimes switch the opinions without batting an eyelid.

(c) Both Tana'im obligate someone who forgot that he was Tamei to bring a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, but exempt him if he forgot that he was in the Beis-Hamikdash or that he was eating Kodshim. Rava now asked Rav Nachman - whether someone who forgot both would be Chayav or Patur.

(a) Rav Ashi attempts to resolve the She'eilah by - analyzing the sinner's reason for desisting. If he desists because he was told that he is Tamei, then he should be Chayav; whereas if he desists because he was told that he is in the Beis-Hamikdash or because he is eating Kodshim, then he should be Patur (see also Tosfos DH 'Amar Rav Ashi').

(b) Ravina rejects this suggestion however - because either way, he will desist because he is a Tamei person eating in the Beis-Hamikdash or eating Kodshim, so Rav Ashi's gauge is unreliable.

(c) Ravina resolves the She'eilah with the words - 'Lo Sh'na', which means that he is Patur (see Ritva).

(a) The Beraisa rules that in a case where someone walked along two paths, one Tamei, and the other Tahor (though it is not known which is which), and then enters the Beis-Hamikdash - he is Chayav to bring a Korban Oleh ve'Yored (since there is a Vaday Yedi'ah that he is Tamei).

(b) The Tana Kama and Rebbi Shimon argue in a case - where after traversing one of the paths and entering the Beis Hamikdash, he Tovels and is sprinkled with the ashes of the Parah Adumah before traversing the second one and entering the Beis Hamikdash a second time.

(c) The Tana Kama rules 'Chayav' because at the end of the day, he definitely traversed the Tamei path. Rebbi Shimon nevertheless exempt him from a Korban - because on neither occasion does he know that he entered the Beis-Hamikdash be'Tum'ah.

(d) Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah in the name of Rebbi Shimon - exempts him from a Korban even in the first case.

4)

(a) The problem with the ruling of Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah, who says in the name of Rebbi Shimon that someone who walks along two paths, one Tamei, and the other Tahor, and then enters the Beis-Hamikdash is Patur from a Korban Oleh ve'Yored is - that seeing as 'Mah Nafshach' he is Tamei and he knows it, why should he not be Chayav?

(b) So Rava establishes the case when, at the time that he traversed the second path, he forgot what he had done in the first instance - because Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah holds that a partial Yedi'ah is not considered a Yedi'ah ...

(c) ... whilst the Tana Kama holds that it is.

(a) The Tana Kama's ruling in the case where someone traverses one of the paths and enters the Beis Hamikdash, Tovels and is sprinkled with the ashes of the Parah Adumah, then traverses the second path and enters the Beis Hamikdash a second time is - that he ought not to be Chayav, because on each occasion, he entered the Beis-Hamikdash, it was with a Safek Yedi'ah.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan therefore explains that the Tana Kama holds 'Asu Safek Yedi'ah ki'Yedi'ah'. According to Resh Lakish however, the Tana Kama is none other than Rebbi Yishmael - who does not require a Yedi'ah at the beginning in the first place.

(a) Someone who ate Safek Cheilev Safek Shuman - is obligated to bring an Asham Taluy.

(b) The Beraisa discusses a case where after eating a piece of fat and realizing that what he ate was Safek Cheilev Safek Shuman, a person repeats the performance. Rebbi obligates him to bring - two Asham Taluys.

(c) Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon in the name of Rebbi Shimon - require him to bring only one.

(d) And they derive this from the Pasuk "al Shigegaso Asher Shagag" - which, because it is superfluous, comes to teach us that sometimes, one brings only one Asham for a number of Shegagos.

(a) Resh Lakish declared 'Ka'an Shanah Rebbi Yedi'os Sefeikos Mechalkos le'Chata'os', by which he means - that just as a Yedi'as Safek divides the Chata'os (because Safek Yedi'ah is considered a Yedi'ah), so too, do does it divide the Ashamos.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan says - that just as Yedi'as Vaday divides the Chata'os, so too, does Yedi'as Safek divide the Ashamos.

(c) The problem with the both the opinions of Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish is - that they appear to have switched what they held by Korban Oleh ve'Yored when it comes to Korban Chatas Kavu'a.

(a) We resolve the contradiction in Rebbi Yochanan, based on the Pasuk "ve'Ne'elam" (by the Korban Oleh ve'Yored) - the only source (by way of hint) for the Ha'alamah, on the one hand, and "O Hoda Eilav Chataso" (by the Chatas Kavu'a) - which is more specific (and therefore more inclusive) on the other.

(b) The problem with Resh Lakish is - that, based on the latter Beraisa, why he had to establish the first Beraisa like Rebbi Yishmael, when he could have established it like Rebbi (who agrees that a Korban Oleh ve'Yored requires a Yedi'ah at the beginning).

(c) The reason he chose to establish it like Rebbi Yishmael however, is - to teach us that Rebbi Yishmael does not require a Yedi'ah at the beginning at all.

(d) This is not so obvious at all - because, even though he uses "ve'Ne'elam" (from which the Chachamim learn 'Yedi'ah ba'Techilah') for something else, we might have thought that he nevertheless concedes that a Yedi'ah ba'Techilah is necessary from a 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai' which he had perhaps received from his Rebbes.

9)

(a) 'Shevu'os Shetayim she'Hein Arba' means - 'Shevu'os Shetayim (Le'hara O Le'heitiv le'Ha'ba) she'Hein Arba (Le'hara O Le'heitiv le'she'Avar)'.

(b) The radical ruling that Rebbi Akiva issues with regard to 'Lo Ochal le'Haba' is - that one is Chayav even for eating a 'Kol she'Hu' (less than the k'Zayis that normally constitutes Achilah).

(c) And he bases this ruling on the equally radical Halachah - that mere speech causes a person to bring a Korban. Consequently, if the basis of a Korban can be speech (and not an act), then it does not require a Shiur either.

(a) The Beraisa rules that if Reuven says to Shimon either 'Shevu'ah Lo Ochal Lach', 'Shevu'ah she'Ochal Lach' or 'Lo Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Lach' - he is forbidden to eat from him.

(b) The last case implies - that he will not have transgressed if he does not eat by him, but that he will if he does.

(c) The Kashya this Beraisa poses on our Mishnah is - that it interprets 'Achilna' as meaning that he will not eat, whereas in our Mishnah, it means that he will.

(a) To answer the Kashya, Abaye establishes the Beraisa - when his statement followed an attempt to induce him to eat by that person, where even 'Shevu'ah she'Ochal Lach', is obviously meant to counter the pressure, as if to say 'a Shevu'ah (I will transgress) if I eat from you'.

(b) Rav Ashi establishes the Beraisa where he said (not 'she'Ochal Lach', but) 'she'I Ochal Lach. In spite of the similarity between this case and 'she'Lo Ochal Lach', we might otherwise have considered 'sh'I' as a a slip of the tongue, and that he actually meant to say 'Shevu'ah she'Ochal Lach' (in which case he would be obligated to eat by him).