Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Akiva rules that a Megadef (someone who curses Hashem) be'Shogeg - is Chayav to bring a Korban Chatas.

(b) Nevertheless, in our Mishnah, he said to the Chachamim 'Heichan Matzinu bi'Medaber u'Meivi Korban' - since he was talking about someone who speaks and causes something to become forbidden, not about someone who speaks and sins.

(c) Neither can we query Rebbi Akiva from ...

1. ... a Nazir (whose status is caused by speech and), who is obligated to bring a Korban at the end of his Nezirus on the day that he shaves - because his Korban comes (not as a Kaparah, but) to permit him to eat Kodshim.
2. ... Hekdesh, which one forbids with a Neder, and for which one brings a Korban, should one benefit from it - because he is referring to someone who forbids something exclusively on himself, whereas Hekdesh is forbidden on everyone.
3. ... a Konam that one forbade on oneself - because (since it is not really in the category of Kodshei Hashem,) Me'ilah does not pertain to it and it is not subject to a Korban Oleh ve'Yored.

(d) We have already learned that by Mefaresh, one is Chayav a Korban even on a 'Kol Shehu'. Besides that, Rava also precluded 'Lo Et'am' from the Din of a k'Zayis. In spite of the fact that he did not mention 'Achilah', we might otherwise have thought - that 'Lo Et'am' implies that will not taste in the manner that most people do (which is the amount of a 'k'Zayis').

(a) Rav Papa states that the Machlokes between Rebbi Akiva and the Rabbanan - does not pertain to someone who makes a Konam, where the Rabbanan agree that one is Chayav Malkos even for a 'Kol Shehu', because the Noder did not mention 'Achilah' (as we explained earlier).

(b) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa rules 'Sh'nei Konamos (two loaves each comprising half a Shiur) Mitztarfin; Sh'tei Shevu'os Ein Mitztarfin'. Rebbi Meir says - 'Konamos ki'Shevu'os'.

(c) We try to prove from this Beraisa - that Konamos too, require a Shiur, otherwise why would two half-Shiurim need to combine (a Kashya on Rav Papa)?

(d) To reconcile Rav Papa with the Beraisa, we establish the case where he said 'Achilah shel Zu Alai Konam', Achilah shel Zu Alai Konam'.

(a) In that case, we ask, how can the two loaves possibly combine, seeing as the Noder mentioned each loaf separately. And we answer that what he actually said was - 'Achilah mi'Sheteihen Alai Konam'.

(b) The problem with the Seifa 'Sh'tei Shevu'os Ein Mitztarfin' is then - why the two half-loaves should not also combine there.

(c) Rebbi Pinchas answers this Kashya, by drawing a basic distinction between Nedarim and Shevu'os -inasmuch as the latter are considered two separate entities regarding Chatas (if one were to eat a k'Zayis of each be'Shogeg), whereas the former would bring only one (according to those who hold 'Yesh Me'ilah be'Konamos'), because it is considered one Me'ilah.

(d) The problem with this is then - on what grounds Rebbi Meir obligates the Noder to bring two Korbanos.

(a) Initially, we answer 'Eipuch' which means - that Rebbi Meir actually said 'Shevu'os ke'Konamos' (and the half-Shiurim combine in both cases), because he does not hold of Rav Pinchas' distinction.

(b) According to Ravina, it is not necessary to invert Rebbi Meir's statement. In his opinion, Rav Papa ('Machlokes bi'Shevu'os ... ') refers to Malkos (be'Meizid), and the Beraisa, to Korban (be'Shogeg), which is different - inasmuch as the Shi'ur of Me'ilah is not a k'Zayis, but a Shaveh P'rutah (which is crucial to the obligation of the Korban).

(c) Rav Papa's opinion is now based on the principle - Yesh Me'ilah be'Konamos'.

(a) The corollary between Me'ilah and Pidyon (redeeming the forbidden article) is - that whatever is subject to Me'ilah can be redeemed?

(b) Based on this corollary, Rebbi Meir permits the redemption of Hekdesh ('Kicker Zu Hekdesh'), but not of Konamos ('Kicker Zu Alai Hekdesh').

(c) By the same token - it is only the Noder who is Mo'el if he benefits from the loaf, but not anybody else.

(d) The Rabbanan say - 'Ein Me'ilah be'Konamos'.

6)

(a) According to Rav Papa, the Rabbanan in the current Beraisa, who hold 'Ein Me'ilah be'Konamos', clash with what they themselves said in the previous one ('Sh'nei Konamos Mitztarfin') - because, as we explained there, this ruling, which concerns Korban (which in turn, is the result of Me'ilah), is based on the principle 'Yesh Me'ilah be'Konamos'.

(b) We answer this Kashya with 'Eipuch' - in which case Rebbi Meir holds that not even the Noder is Mo'el (because he holds 'Ein Me'ilah be'Konamos'); whereas the Rabbanan hold 'Yesh Me'ilah be'Konamos', and the Noder is Mo'el.

(c) The problem this creates with Rebbi Meir's opinion ('Konamos ki'Shevu'os') in the earlier Beraisa is - how he can then say 'Konamos ki'Shevu'os', implying that Konamos are subject to Me'ilah (when he just said 'Ein Me'ilah be'Konamos').

(d) We answer that Rebbi Meir says it even though he doesn't really hold of it - to try and convince the Rabbanan to concede to him at least in that case that the Noder should be Patur (like he is Patur by Shevu'os).

(e) But the Rabbanan answered him - that Konamos cannot be compared to Shevu'os, where Rav Pinchas' S'vara ('Mitoch she'Chalukos le'Chata'os ... ') applies.

(a) Rava rules that someone who declared 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal', and who then ate dust - is Patur (because this does not constitute Achilah in the conventional sense).

(b) He then asked whether someone who declared 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Afar' - and then ate less than a 'k'Zayis' would be Chayav or not.

(c) Despite the fact that he said 'she'Lo Ochal ... ', and Achilah normally denotes a 'k'Zayis', he might nevertheless be Chayav for even less a 'k'Zayis' - because that principle may well be confined to edibles.

(d) The outcome of the She'eilah is 'Teiku' (Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Ibayos').

(a) Rava asks what the Din will be if someone made a Shevu'ah not to eat grape-pits and then ate less than k'Zayis. He might be Patur even assuming that he would have been Chayav for a 'Kol Shehu' of dust - because grape-pits are at least edible together with grapes.

(b) He might nevertheless be Patur - because since Rava is speaking when he eats them on their own, perhaps they are considered non-edible, in which case he will be Chayav (like dust).

(c) Rav Ashi thinks that even if in the previous case (which remains unresolved) the Nishba is Patur, a Nazir who makes the same Shevu'ah will be Chayav - because, seeing as the Torah has already forbidden a complete Shiur (see Tosfos DH 'a'Heteira ... '), he is 'Mushba ve'Omed me'Har Sinai', and probably declared the Shevu'ah to incorporate less than the Shiur in the Isur.

(d) The Nazir might still be Patur - since he used the Lashon of 'Achilah'.

(a) We already discussed the Beraisa 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal ve'Achal Neveilos u'Tereifos ... Chayav', which Resh Lakish established when the Nishba specified Chatzi Shiur, according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Akiva. According to them, if the Nishba had not specified a Chatzi Shiur - he would only be Chayav if he ate a 'k'Zayis'.

(b) Seeing as, like a Nazir, one is already Mushba ve'Omed me'Har Sinai not to eat Neveilos and T'reifos, we can resolve from here - Rav Ashi's She'eilah, that a Nazir who swears not to eat grape-pits will require a full Shiur in order to be Chayav (in spite of the fact that he is 'Mushba ve'Omed ... ').

(c) Despite the fact that Neveilah is not edible either, we cannot also resolve Rava's first She'eilah (whether one is Chayav on less than a k'Zayis of dust) from the same point (seeing as, if not for 'Mefaresh'), the Beraisa would have required a k'Zayis - since Neveilos u'T'reifos may well be forbidden, but they are technically edible (whereas grape-pits are not).

(a) The distinction our Mishnah draws between someone who declares a Shevu'ah that he will not ...

1. ... eat and someone who declares that he will not eat or drink is - that the former is Chayav only one set of Malkos if he then eats and drinks, whereas the latter is Chayav two.
2. ... eat and one who declares that he will not eat wheat-bread, barley-bread or bread made of spelt is - that the former is Chayav only one set of Malkos should he subsequently eat all three, whereas the latter is Chayav Malkos for each species that he inserted in the Shevu'ah.
3. ... drink and one who declares that he will not drink wine, oil or honey is - that the former is Chayav one set of Malkos should he subsequently drink wine, oil and honey, whereas the latter is Chayav three.

(b) In a case where someone declares a 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal' and then eats or drinks ...

1. ... something that is not edible - the Tana Kama exempts him from Malkos.
2. ... Neveilos u'Tereifos, Shekatzim u'Remasim - the Tana Kama sentences him to Malkos.

(c) Rebbi Shimon - exempts him in the second case too, because he is 'Mushba ve'Omed me'Har Sinai'.

(d) The Mishnah concludes 'Konem Ishti Nehenis Li Im Achalti ha'Yom, ve'Hu Achal Neveilos u'Neveilos ... , Harei Ishto Asurah'. In fact - Rebbi Shimon concedes here that the Shevu'ah has taken effect, seeing as he ate something that is edible. And the reason for his previous ruling is because of 'Mushba ve'Omed ... . (as we explained, and not because they are not considered food).

(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Shmuel ascribes the Mishnah's opening ruling both to a Pasuk and to logic. The logic behind the ruling 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal, Ve'achal *Ve'shasah*, Chayav' is - the fact that people tend to say 'Come let's taste something', and then they proceed to eat and drink.

(b) His original proof from the Pasuk is based on a statement of Resh Lakish, who tries to prove from the Pasuk (in connection with Ma'aser Sheini) "Ve'achalta Lifnei Hashem ... Ma'asar Degancha, Tiroshcha ... " - that "Achilah' incorporates drinking (seeing as 'Tirosh' means wine).

(c) We reject this proof however, based on a statement by Rabah bar Shmuel, who defines 'Anigron' as juice, together with the beet in which it was cooked, and 'Achsigron' - as juice together with the vegetables in which they were cooked.

(d) Based on a Tosefta, which presents wine as one the ingredients of Anigron and Achsigron, we see that wine is sometimes eaten as part of other dishes, which may well be the reason that the Lashon 'Achilah' covers ''Tiroshcha", too.