Previous daf

1)

(a) Alternatively, the author of the Beraisa 'Shav ve'Sheker Echad Hein' is Rebbi Akiva, and the Beraisa is not talking about Malkos.
What then, *is* it talking about? What does Rebbi Akiva say?

(b) What problem do we have with the Beraisa, which describes Shevu'as Sheker as 'Nishba Le'hachlif' (based on Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan's interpretation of Shevu'as Shav)?

(c) So how so we amend it?

(a) Ravin Amar Rebbi Yirmiyah Amar Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Rav Dimi's interpretation of Rebbi Yochanan. According to him, "ve'Lo Sishav'u vi'Shemi la'Sheker" is the Azharah of 'Achalti, ve'Lo Achal' (or vice-versa).
How does he then interpret 'Sheker'?

(b) How does he then interpret ...

1. ... "Lo Yachel Devaro"?
2. ... "Lo Sisa es Shem Hashem Elokecha la'Shav"?

(a) Rebbi Yochanan quotes Rebbi Yehudah in the name of Rebbi Yossi. Of which principle are Nishba, Meimar and Mekalel es Chaveiro be'Shem the exception? What is 'Meimar'?

(b) Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai learns Nishba from "Ki Lo Yenakeh Hashem ... " (as we explained earlier).
What did Abaye reply when Rav Papa asked him that perhaps what the Pasuk means is that the sin is unpardonable?

(c) What does Rebbi Yochanan then learn from the fact that the Torah writes "la'Shav" twice, according to Rebbi Avahu?

(a) On what grounds does Rebbi Avahu reject the suggestion that Shevu'as Sheker refers to ...

1. ... 'she'Lo Ochal, ve'Achal'?
2. ... 'she'Ochal, ve'Lo Achal? For which two reasons is this not possible?

(b) So how does Rebbi Avahu establish Shevu'as Sheker?

(c) From where do we know that this case is subject to Malkos?

(d) What have we proved from Rebbi Avahu's explanation?

(a) If we decline to interpret the extra "la'Shav" as 'Ochal, ve'Lo Achal', because it is a La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh', on what grounds do we accept the interpretation of 'Achalti, ve'Lo Achal ... '?

(b) What does the Beraisa say about a case where someone declares 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal Kikar Zu, Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochlenah, Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochlenah, ve'Achlah'? Assuming he transgresses ...

1. ... be'Meizid, how many Malkos will he receive?
2. ... be'Shogeg, what must he do?

(c) In the case of Meizid, why does he not receive three sets of Malkos?

(a) How did Rebbi Yirmiyah query Rebbi Avahu from the wording of the Beraisa 'Zu Hi Shevu'as Bituy she'Chayavin al Zedonah Makos ve'al Shigegasah Korban Oleh ve'Yored'? What did he extrapolate from there?

(b) How did Rebbi Avahu then explain the Beraisa's inherent implication?

(c) Who is then the author of the Beraisa (who holds that 'Achalti' and 'Lo Achalti' are not subject to a Korban, but does receive Malkos)?

7)

(a) The Seifa of the Beraisa states 'Zu Hi Shevu'as Shav she'Chayavin al Zedonah Makos ve'al Shigegasah Patur'.
What case is the Seifa referring to?

(b) How does Rebbi Yirmiyah again query Rebbi Avahu from here? What does he assume that the Beraisa comes to preclude 'Achalti' and 'Lo Achalti' from?

(c) And how does Rebbi Avahu explain the Beraisa?

(d) Who will then be the author of the Beraisa (who holds that 'Achalti' and 'Lo Achalti' do not receive Malkos, but that they are subject to a Korban)?

(a) What problem does this leave us with?

(b) We finally accept the latter interpretation of the Seifa, but not our earlier interpretation of the Reisha (establishing Rebbi Akiva as the author of the Beraisa).
If the Reisha does not come to preclude 'Achalti' and 'Lo Achalti' from a Korban, what does it come to exclude from what?

(c) On what grounds do we preclude 'Ochal, ve'Lo Achal' in the Reisha and not 'Achalti, ve'Lo Achal'?

(a) We suggest that perhaps Rebbi Akiva, who sentences 'Lo Ochal, ve'Achal Kol she'Hu' to Malkos, holds like Rebbi Shimon.
What does Rebbi Shimon say?

(b) In that case, why did Rebbi choose to present the Machlokes specifically here in the case of Shevu'ah?

(c) What is the alternative way of explaining Rebbi Akiva?

(a) If Rebbi Akiva holds like Rebbi Shimon, then when the Rabbanan in our Mishnah asked him 'Heichan Matzinu Kol Shehu she'Hu Chayav ... ', why did he answer them 'Heichan Matzinu bi'Medaber she'Hu Chayav ... '? Why did he not reply that he holds like Rebbi Shimon?

(b) What does Rebbi Akiva rule in the Mishnah in Nazir about a Nazir who soaked his bread in wine? Why does he say that?

(c) What does this prove?

(a) In a Mishnah later in the Perek, the Tana Kama sentences someone who declares 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal' and who eats Neveilos and T'reifos ... ' to Malkos.
What does Rebbi Shimon say?

(b) What problem do we have with the Tana Kama's ruling?

(c) Rav, Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan establish the Mishnah when the Nishba incorporated permitted foods in his Shevu'ah as well as forbidden ones.
What will then be the basis of the Machlokes between the Chachamim and Rebbi Shimon?

(a) Resh Lakish disagrees with the other Amora'im. He establishes the Mishnah by 'Kol she'Hu'.
What distinction does he make in this point between the Rabbanan and Rebbi Akiva?

(b) How do we prove from Resh Lakish that Rebbi Akiva does not hold like Rebbi Shimon (in cases other than Shevu'ah)?

(c) The Rabbanan in our Mishnah asked Rebbi Akiva where we find that one is Chayav for a 'Kol she'Hu'.
Why did Rebbi Akiva not answer that we find it ...

1. ... by an ant (for which one receives Malkos even if it is not the size of a 'k'Zayis')?
2. ... by Hekdesh?
3. ... by Mefaresh (someone who specifies a 'Kol Shehu' in the case of a Shevu'ah)?

(a) We ask why Rebbi Akiva did not answer that we find a 'Kol Shehu' by dust.
Why do we initially take for granted that dust does not require a Shiur?

(b) How do we refute the Kashya, and resolve Rava's She'eilah simultaneously? What was Rava's She'eilah?

(c) On what grounds do we reject the answer that we just gave? Why is the original Kashya not really valid?

(d) And on what grounds do we conclude that Konamos are also considered 'Mefaresh'? What are 'Konamos'?

Next daf