Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) NON-STANDARD ACHILAH (R. Yochanan)

(a) A Zar who consumes Terumah abnormally pays the principle but not the Chomesh (he has "damaged" the grain, not eaten it).
(b) Once food has been eaten (and the Zar has become liable in Keren and Chomesh), subsequent consumption of that food renders the user liable only to pay the firewood value to the first (and nothing to the Kohen).

(a) Question: Who is the author of this non-Tziruf rule?
(b) Answer: (R. Chisda) It is R. Yehoshua who taught that Tziruf (for Tumah) only occurs when two items have the identical Zman and Shiur (whereas according to Chachamim there is Tziruf so long as there is overlap in Zman and Shiur).
(c) Answer: (R. Nachman) Our Mishnah could even follow the opinion of the Chachamim and their view of Tziruf by Tumah (where both items are called Tameh) may differ on Yom Kipur (where, even combined, the less-then-Shiur amount of food and/or drink does not generate Yishuv HaDa'as).
(d) Resh Lakish taught like R. Chisda and R. Yochanan taught like R. Nachman.

(a) If one ate and drank (the Shiur of each) in one He'elem, he brings only one Chatas (they are both parts of one Isur).
(b) If one ate and did Melachah in one He'elem, he is Chayav two Chataos.
(c) If one ate non-edibles he is Patur.

(a) (Resh Lakish) There is no Lav in the Torah regarding Inui because language is lacking to express such a Lav.

1. Lo Yochal would imply Achilah (BeKezayis).
2. Lo SeUneh would imply one *must* eat.

(b) Question: The language could be Hishamer Pen Lo SeUneh!?
(c) Answer: That would create *two* Lavin (Hishamer and Pen).
(d) Question: The wording could be Hishamer BeMitzvas Inui!?
(e) Answer: That would create an Aseh, not a Lav.
(f) Question: Let it say Al Tasur Min HaInui!?
(g) Answer: Good question.

(a) The Beraisa derives the Azharah from VeInisem...

1. The Pasuk VeChol HaNefesh comes to restrict the Kares to the day itself, and not to any additions to the day.
2. The Pasuk VeChol Melachah comes to restrict the Torah prohibition to the day itself, and not to Tosefes.
3. Logic dictates that there would not be a Lav on added Inui (if Tosefes Melachah is not a Lav...).

(b) The source of the Azharah regarding Inui is the Torah's superfluous reference to Kares by Melachah (which could have been derived logically from Melachah of Shabbos/Yom Tov) which serves to link Melachah (where the Azharah is explicit) to Inui (where the Azharah is thus derived).
(c) Question: But the difference between Melachah and Inui should disrupt this connection (Inui has no exceptions while Melachah is excepted in the Avodah)!?
(d) Answer: Rather, the derivation is from the superfluous reference to Kares by *Inui*, which creates the link to Melachah.
(e) Question: But Melachah is more frequent than Inui!?
(f) (Ravina) The Tana of the Beraisa in fact learns the Azharah from the link between Melachah and Inui created by Etzem.

1. This link is Mufneh, as analyzed below, and is hence not subject to the disruptions above.
2. There are five Pesukim, one is Mufneh for the link.

(g) Another source for the Azharah by Yom Kipur is provided by D'Vei R. Yishmael.

1. Inui is written by Yom Kipur and by Ones (Eishes Ish).
2. Just as by Ones there is no Onesh without an Azharah, so, too, by Yom Kipur.

(h) Another source is provided by R. Acha b. Yakov.

1. The term Shabbos Shabason links Yom Kipur to Shabbos.
2. Just as there is no Onesh by Shabbos without an Azharah, so, too, by Yom Kipur.

(i) (R. Papa) Since Yom Kipur itself is called Shabbos (Tishbesu Shabatchem), it is like Shabbos in both Onesh and Azharah!

1. He prefers learning from the Pasuk itself than from a Gezeirah Shavah as did R. Acha b. Yakov.
2. Question: Why did R. Acha b. Yakov not do the same?
3. Answer: He uses Tishbesu Shabatchem to learn Tosefes Shabbos and Yom Tov from Yom Kipur (as in the Beraisa).
4. Question: What will the Tana who uses Etzem to restrict Kares to the day itself and not to Tosefes (he must already know Tosefes as a Lav) do with BeSish'ah LaChodesh (which this Beraisa uses as the source for Tosefes)?
5. Answer: To teach that if one eats on the Ninth, he is considered to have fasted on both the Ninth and Tenth.

(a) (Rava) One who eats spices as though they were food (pepper or ginger) on Yom Kipur is Patur.
(b) Question: But we have learned that not only the pepper, but even the bush of the pepper is considered an edible food!?
(c) Answer: That refers to moist pepper (edible), while Rava is speaking of dried pepper (edible only as a condiment).
(d) Question: But R. Nachman taught that ginger *is* edible!?
(e) Answer: Again, that speaks where the ginger is moist.

(a) One is Patur for consuming the leaves of trees and vines, but Chayav for the leaves of a grapevine (Lulavei Gefanim).
(b) (R. Yitzhok Magdela'ah) This refers to young, soft leaves while leaves older than Rosh HaShanah would be Patur.
(c) (R. Kehanah) The cutoff is 30 days.
(d) A Beraisa supports R. Yitzhok Magdela'ah.

(a) By inference, vinegar would be Chayav.
(b) Question: Who is the Tana of our Mishnah?
(c) Answer: It is Rebbi who taught that vinegar satisfies.
(d) R. Gidel b. Menashe taught that the Halachah is not like Rebbi.

1. The following year people diluted vinegar and drank it.
2. R. Gidel objected, stating that the discussion only revolved around being Patur or Chayav, not Mutar!
3. Further, we only spoke of a small quantity of vinegar, but surely a large quantity is satisfying!
4. Further, we only spoke of undiluted vinegar, never of diluted vinegar (which certainly may satisfy)!