Previous daf

1)

(a) According to the Mishnah in Shavu'os, the Korban Shevu'ah for Shevu'as ha'Eidus is restricted to someone who is fit to testify. According to Rav Papa, this comes to preclude a king - according to Rav Acha bar Ya'akov, a gambler.

(b) A gambler is disqualified from testifying mi'de'Rabbanan - because (due to the fact that he did not actually steal his winnings) he is only a Gazlan mi'de'Rabbanan.

(c) In spite of the fact that, according to Resh Lakish, Shevu'as *Bituy* applies in a case of less than a Shiur of Isur (since it is not Asur min ha'Torah), Shevu'as *ha'Eidus* does not apply even by an Isur de'Rabbanan) - since the Torah writes there "Im Lo Yagid" (and what is the difference whether he cannot testify mi'd'Oraysa or mi'de'Rabbanan)?

(a) The Beraisa explains that although Chazal said 'Asur' by all the Isurim on Yom Kipur, only three of them are actually Chayav Kares: - eating, drinking and Melachah.

(b) We amend the Beraisa to read that 'Asur' only pertains to Chatzi Shiur, but a full Shiur is subject to Kares; even by a full Shiur however, only the three above-mentioned cases receive Kares.

(c) Alternatively, 'Asur' pertains to the other cases - i.e. washing anointing and wearing shoes, which we learn from the Pasuk "Shabason".

(d) It is not really d'Oraysa - it is an Asmachta (a de'Rabbanan, which Chazal supported with a Pasuk).

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, Chatzi Shiur is logically forbidden - because every Shiur is made up of half-Shiurim, of which each part is fit to combine with the rest to make up the full Shiur (so it is illogical to say that the Torah would permit it outright).

(b) Chatzi Shiur is permitted (min ha'Torah) according to Resh Lakish - because the Torah does not consider eating less than the Shiur, 'Achilah'.

(a) There is no punishment for eating less than a Shiur. The Beraisa nevertheless learns from the Pasuk "Kol Cheilev" - that even eating less than the Shiur is forbidden. Rebbi Yochanan proves from here that Chatzi Shiur is Asur min ha'Torah.

(b) Resh Lakish explains that the Tana really holds that 'Chazti Shiur Mutar min ha'Torah' - and the Pasuk is merely an Asmachta.

(c) Resh Lakish attempts to prove this from the Beraisa, which includes the Cheilev of a Coy (a species of deer which we currently think is a Safek Chayah, Safek Beheimah) in the prohibition from "*Kol* Cheilev". Now, if the Beraisa was speaking about an Isur d'Oraysa (like Rebbi Yochanan learns), why would we need a Pasuk to include a Coy, asks Resh Lakish? Does Hashem really not know whether a Coy is a Beheimah or a Chayah?

(d) Rebbi Yochanan refutes Resh Lakish's proof - on the grounds that a Coy is not a Safek at all, but a new breed (which is neither a Beheimah nor a Chayah), and which therefore requires a Pasuk to forbid it.

5)

(a) We prove that a Coy must be a breed on its own from a statement by Rav Idi bar Avin, who includes the blood of a Coy in the prohibition of blood from the Pasuk in Acharei Mos "*Kol* Dam Lo Socheilu". Why would we need a Pasuk to include a Safek Beheimah, Safek Chayah - both of which are forbidden? It is therefore clear that a Coy is not just a Safek, but a new breed.

(b) The reason there, cannot be because a Coy is a Safek, like Resh Lakish learns by the Beraisa of Cheilev - because whether it is a Beheimah or a Chayah, its blood will be forbidden.

(a) "Te'anu es Nafshoseichem" cannot mean that one should go and sit in the sun or in the cold - because the Torah compares Inuy to Melachah (since they appear in the same Pasuk): just as one fulfills the latter through non-action (i.e. not working), so too, does one fulfill the former through non-action (by not eating).

(b) Neither can it mean that we tell someone who is already in the sun or in the cold to remain there - because we do not find such a distinction by working (which is forbidden in all cases).

(a) In the second Beraisa, the Tana writes that affliction, like Melachah, speaks when it is forbidden elsewhere - i.e. on Shabbos.

(b) So we establish "Te'anu" by Pigul and Nosar, and "ve'Inisem es Nafshosiechem" (both in Acharei-Mos) by Tevel - we would not be able to learn Tevel, which is *not* a Chiyuv Kares, from Pigul and Nosar, which *is*.

(c) We ultimately include from "ve'Inisem es Nafshoseichem" - Neveilah (which is not even Chayav Misah - like Tevel is), Chulin, which is not even subject to a La'av (though it is not clear how the Ribuy can over-ride the Hekesh with which the Sugya began), Terumah, which it is even a Mitzvah (for Kohanim) to eat, and Kodshim, which are even forbidden to leave over. All of these are included in the Mitzvah of Inuy on Yom Kipur.

(a) The Beraisa however, concludes, by learning that Inuy refers to not eating, from another source. And we need that source - because otherwise, we might have thought that "Te'anu" and ve'Inisem" pertain to Inuy from Tashmish (which is also called 'Inuy', as we shall see shortly).

(b) The Beraisa's source that Inuy means to refrain from eating - is the Pasuk in Emor "ve'Ha'avadti es ha'Nefesh ha'Hi" - from which we learn that it must be an Inuy which leads to 'Ha'avadas Nefesh' i.e. fasting (though this is strange, since "ve'Ha'avadti ... " is written with regard to Melachah, and not Inuy).

1. ... "Im Te'aneh es Benosai"(Vayeitzei) of Lavan - because the latter refers to a private individual (Ya'akov), and not to the whole of K'lal Yisrael, as both the Inuy of Yom Kipur and that of the Man do.
2. ... "Vayar es Onyeinu" (Sh'mos) of Egypt (which refers to the Egyptians forcing the Jewish men to keep apart from their wives) - because that was a man-induced Inuy, and not one that was purely Divine, like that of Yom Kipur and the Man.

(a) Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi argue over what the Inuy of the Man comprised. According to one of them, it was the fact that they could not see what they were eating - because someone who cannot see his food, does not fully enjoy it, and Yisrael did not see what they were eating, because the Man always looked the same, not like the variety of foods that they actually tasted.

(b) We learn from here that ...

1. ... a blind man does not become satisfied (because satisfaction is linked to the extent that one enjoys one's food - unless the Gemara is merely saying that he does not enjoy his food).
2. ... to get the best out of a meal - one should eat it by day (or at least with a light, making it like day - see 75b).

(c) The other opinion explains the Inuy of the Man - to mean that (except for Shabbos) they never had Man for the next day - and one cannot compare someone who has bread in his basket to someone who hasn't.

(a) Resh Lakish explains the Pasuk in Koheles "Tov Mar'eh Einayim me'Halach Nafesh" - to mean that looking at a woman gives a person more pleasure than having relations with her (see Tosfos Yeshanim).

(b) Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi also argue over the interpretation of the Pasuk in Mishlei "Ki Yiten be'Kos Eino, Yis'halech be'Meisharim" - One explains that anyone who loves drinking will think that all forbidden women are permitted. The other, that it is everyone's money that he will consider permitted.