Previous daf

1)

(a) We try to establish the Machlokes between Rebbi Chiya and bar Kapara in all three cases by Isur Kolel, according to Rebbi Yossi. The Isur Kolel in ...

1. ... Zar she'Shimeish be'Shabbos - is the fact that initially, the Zar is permitted to perform Melachah, but Shabbos brings with it an Isur Melachah.
2. ... Ba'al-Mum she'Shimeish be'Tum'ah - is the fact that a Ba'al-Mum is initially permitted to eat Kodshim, but Tum'ah prohibits him to eat Kodshim.

(b) bar Kapara establishes the Beraisa where Rebbi Yossi says that he is Chayav both for Achos Ishah and for Eishes Ach - when he married his wife before his brother married her sister, making Eishes Ach an Isur Mosif (because she becomes forbidden to all the brothers, too.

(c) The Beraisa where Rebbi Yossi says that he is Chayav two, and which we established when his brother married his wife's sister before he married his wife (making Achos Ishah an Isur Kolel - since he is now to all her sisters) - was learned according to Rebbi Chiya but not according to bar Kapara.

(d) It is not possible to establish an Isur Kolel by Zar she'Achal Melikah however, only an Isur Bas Achas - because the Isur for a Zar to eat a bird of Kodshim, only comes into effect from the moment the Melikah is performed (when the Kohanim are permitted to eat it). Before that, there is an Isur Me'ilah (which pertains to Kohanim no less than to Zarim).

(a) Isur Bas Achas applies by 'Zar she'Shimeish be'Shabbos' - when he grew two hairs on Shabbos, thereby becoming liable for both at the same time.

(b) There are two ways to apply Isur Bas Achas by 'Ba'al -Mum she'Shimeish be'Tum'ah'. One is identical to that of 'Zar she'Shimeish be'Shabbos' - the other, when he cuts himself with a Tamei knife.

(c) Rebbi Chiya explains that Rebbi said that Isur bas Achas is Chayav two according to Rebbi Yossi, and *one*, according to *Rebbi Shimon* - and bar Kapara erred in thinking that he said *one* according to *Rebbi Yossi*.

(d) It is bar Kapara's view of Rebbi Chiya that puts us in a spot and forces us to retract from the current interpretation of the Machlokes - because if Rebbi said that bas Achas is Chayav only *one* according to Rebbi Yossi (as he maintains), then in which regard (or according to whom) did Rebbi Chiya hear from Rebbi *two*? It certainly cannot be according to Rebbi Shimon, who is more lenient than Rebbi Yossi?

(a) So we establish their Machlokes, not according to Rebbi Yossi, but according to Rebbi Shimon. They both agree that, according to Rebbi Yossi - one is Chayav two, both by Isur Kolel and by Isur bas Achas.

(b) Rebbi Chiya found it necessary to swear - in order to take Rebbi Shimon out of his Chazakah (that although, by Isur Kolel he is lenient, and holds that one is Chayav only one, by Isur bas Achas, he subscribes to the strict opinion, that one is Chayav two).

(c) The problem with bar Kapara is - why *he* found it necessary to swear, seeing as, in his opinion, Rebbi Shimon rules leniently by bas Achas, just like he does by Isur Kolel, swearing was unnecessary?

(a) According to bar Kapara, Rebbi said that Isur bas Achas is Chayav one according to Rebbi Shimon, and two, according to Rebbi Yossi - and Rebbi Chiya erred inasmuch as he thought that when Rebbi said two, it was according to Rebbi Shimon.

(b) Whereas according to Rebbi Chiya, Rebbi said that one is Chayav one according to Rebbi Shimon, with regard to Isur Kolel by Zar she'Shimeish be'Shabbos and Ba'al-Mum she'Shimeish be'Tum'ah. bar Kapara's mistake was - to include Zar she'Achal bi'Melikah (which applies by Isur Kolel, but not by Isur Kolel) on his own volition. Later, he forgot that it was *he* who had added it, and thought that Rebbi had said all three. So he inferred (wrongly) that in the opinion of Rebbi, Rebbi Shimon holds that one is Chayav only *one* even by bas Achas.

(c) According to Rebbi Chiya - Isur bas Achas is more stringent than Isur Kolel, seeing as even Rebbi Shimon agrees that one is Chayav two.

5)

(a) We prove bar Kapara wrong from a Beraisa, which lists the cases where, according to Rebbi, one is Chayav two - Zar she'Shimeish be'Shabbos and Ba'al-Mum she'Shimeish be'Tum'ah, omitting Zar she'Achal bi'Melikah. Omitting it, implies that even Rebbi Shimon will agree that there, one is Chayav two, because only Isur bas Achas applies to it - like Rebbi Chiya.

(b) We know that the Tana omits Zar she'Achal bi'Melikah because of Rebbi Shimon and not because of Rebbi Yossi - because, according to Rebbi Yossi, if one is Chayav two for the other two cases, which are Isur Kolel, then how much more so for Zar she'Achal bi'Melikah, where Isur bas Achas applies.

(a) 'Zar she'Shimeish be'Shabbos ... ' cannot be referring to a Zar who performed ...

1. ... Shechitah on Shabbos - because Shechitah Kesheirah be'Zar. Consequently, if a Kohen may Shecht Korbanos on Shabbos, so may a Zar.
2. ... Kabalah or Holachah - because they do not comprise a Melachah, only Tiltul (moving the blood - which is only an Isur de'Rabbanan).
3. ... Haktarah - because, according to Rebbi Yossi, making a fire on Shabbos is only a La'av which does not carry with it a penalty of Kareis.

(b) Rav Achah bar Ya'akov establishes Rebbi by the Shechitah of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur - according to those who hold that this is Kasher only through the Kohen Gadol (like most of the other Avodos on Yom Kipur).

(c) Rebbi speaks about a Zar, despite the fact that (according to this opinion) even a Kohen is Pasul - because 'Zar' simply means anyone who is not qualified to perform the Avodah in question (in this case, anyone other than the Kohen Gadol).

(a) According to Rav Ashi, Zar she'Shimeish be'Shabbos is referring to a Zar who made Haktarah on Shabbos. The fact that Rebbi Yossi holds that there is no Chatas is no problem, he says - because the Tana did not mention Chata'os or even La'avin; he just said that there are two Isurim.

(b) He explains - that, according to Rebbi Yossi, the two Isurim warrant his burial in the Beis ha'Kevaros of complete Resha'im (Nisrafim ve'Niskalim), as we learned above (on 32b.).

(a) If two people switched their wives on the way to the Chupah, they are Chayav because of Eishes Ish. If the two women are also ...

1. ... sisters - they are Chayav for Achos Ishto, too (and Chayav two Chata'os).
2. ... Nidos - they are also Chayav for Nidah (and Chayav, three).

(b) If the two men are also brothers, they are Chayav for Eishes Ach too, and have to bring four Chata'os.

(c) Before taking their wives back, they must first wait three months - to prevent a mix-up, should she be pregnant, and, when the baby is born they will not know whether it is a ninth month baby from the first man or a seventh month baby from the second one (creating many complications regarding Kibud Av and possible incest later in life).

(d) They do not need to wait if they were Ketanos (as will be explained in the Sugya).

(a) It is unusual for Tana'im to speak about blatant Resha'im. In addition, we know from a Beraisa learned by Rebbi Chiya that the Tana of our Mishnah must be speaking about a switch that took place by mistake, and not on purpose - because the Tana there says - that, all in all, sixteen Chata'os are brought, and Chata'os are only brought when the sin was performed be'Shogeg.

(b) Rav Yehudah reconciles the Lashon of our Mishnah 've'Hichlifu' (implying deliberately) with what we just said, by amending it to 've'Huchlefu'.

(c) We refute the proof for this from the Seifa of the Mishnah, which precludes a Ketanah from this Din (permitting her to return to her husband immediately), and a wife who commits adultery is normally forbidden to return to her husband - by restricting the distinction between seduction and rape to a Gedolah (who has full Da'as), but, as far as a Ketanah is concerned, her seduction is considered rape.

(d) We nevertheless prove it from the Seifa 'Mafrishin Osan Sheloshah Chodashim, Shema Me'ubaros Hein', from which we infer - that if we would know with certainty that they were not pregnant, they would be permitted to return to their husbands immediately (and from the fact that, after three months, they are permitted anyway), which would not be the case, had they switched deliberately.