1)
(a)By Terumah too, the Tana'im argue over Pesukim, as we stated earlier. What does Rebbi Eliezer initially extrapolate from the word "T'rumosai" (in the Pasuk in Korach "va'Ani Hinei Nasati Lecha es Mishmeres Terumosai")?
(b)Why do we object to the initial version of his statement 'Achas Terumah Tehorah ve'Achas Terumah Temei'ah'?
(c)So what is the correct version?
(d)How does Rebbi Yehoshua then counter Rebbi Eliezer's proof from "T'rumosai"?
1)
(a)By Terumah too, the Tana'im argue over Pesukim, as we stated earlier. Initially, Rebbi Eliezer extrapolates from from the word "T'rumosai" (in the Pasuk in Korach "va'Ani Hinei Nasati Lecha es Mishmeres T'rumosai")that - the Torah is speaking about two kinds of Terumah, Terumah Tehorah and Terumah Teme'ah, both of which need to be guarded against Tum'ah.
(b)We object however, to the initial version of his statement 'Achas Terumah Tehorah ve'Achas Terumah Teme'ah' - on the basis of the futility of guarding Terumah Teme'ah against Tum'ah.
(c)The correct version must therefore be 'Achas Terumah Tehorah ve'Achas Terumah Teluyah' (Safek Tamei, which needs guarding in case it is Tahor).
(d)And Rebbi Yehoshua counters Rebbi Eliezer's proof from "T'rumosai" - by pointing out that since it is missing a 'Vav', we go after the way it is written (Yesh Eim le'Mesores), and explain it in the singular (as if it had written 'T'rumasi').
2)
(a)But we query Rebbi Eliezer's explanation from a Beraisa (in connection with a father selling his daughter as an Amah Ivriyah). What does Rebbi Akiva Darshen from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "le'Am Nochri Lo Yimshol le'Machrah be'Vigdo vah"?
(b)How does Rebbi Eliezer interpret the Pasuk?
(c)What is the basis of their Machlokes?
(d)What is now the problem with Rebbi Eliezer?
2)
(a)But we query Rebbi Eliezer's explanation from a Beraisa (in connection with a father selling his daughter as an Amah Ivriyah). Rebbi Akiva Darshens from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "le'Am Nochri Lo Yimshol le'Machrah be'Vigdo vah" that - once the girl's master has spread his Talis over her (meaning that he has taken her under the Chupah (performed Yi'ud with her), the father is no longer permitted to sell her.
(b)Rebbi Eliezer interprets the Pasuk to mean that - having dealt with his daughter treacherously (from the Lashon Begidah) and sold her, the father is not permitted to sell her again.
(c)The basis of their Machlokes is - whether Yesh Eim li'Mesores (the way the word is spelt, and there is no 'Yud' in "be'Vigdo," as one would have expected [Rebbi Eliezer]) or after the way the word is read (Yesh Eim le'Mikra [Rebbi Akiva]).
(d)The problem with Rebbi Eliezer is now that - whereas in our Sugya he holds Yesh Eim le'Mikra, in the Sugya regarding Amah Ivriyah, he holds Yesh Eim li'Mesores.
3)
(a)So we conclude that they argue over the word "l'cha" (that precedes "es Mishmeres T'rumosai". How does Rebbi Yehoshua interpret it?
(b)What does Rebbi Eliezer say? Why does he consider Terumah Teluyah fit to eat?
3)
(a)So we conclude that they argue over the word "l'cha" (that precedes "es Mishmeres Terumosai", which Rebbi Yehoshua interprets to mean that - one only needs to guard Terumah that is fit to eat (but not Terumah Teluyah, which is not).
(b)Rebbi Eliezer counters that - Terumah Teluyah is fit to eat, due to the possibility that Eliyahu will come and declare it permitted.
4)
(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules like Rebbi Shimon. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak rejects the suggestion that he is referring to Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah 'Yakiz, Af-al-Pi she'Hu Oseh Mum'. Why is that?
(b)Then which ruling of Rebbi Shimon is Rav Yehudah referring to?
4)
(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules like Rebbi Shimon. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak rejects the suggestion that he is referring to Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah 'Yakiz, Af-al-Pi she'Hu Oseh Mum' - because he has already rules like him on another occasion (as we learned in the third Perek).
(b)In that case, he must be referring to Rebbi Shimon - in the Beraisa ('Af Nishchat al Oso Mum').
34b----------------------------------------34b
5)
(a)According to Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah, if the owner nicks the B'chor's ear, he will never be permitted to Shecht it. What do the Rabbanan say?
(b)We query Rebbi Eliezer's ruling however, from a Mishnah in Nega'im. What does the Mishnah say about a mark of Tzara'as (Baheres) that got cut off?
(c)Should the Metzora remove it himself, under which circumstances does Rebbi Eliezer rule that he can become Tahor?
(d)According to the Chachamim, he will remain Tamei until the second Baheres spreads to his whole body. Why is that?
(e)What other condition might suffice according to them?
5)
(a)According to Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah, if the owner nicks in the B'chor's ear, he will never be permitted to Shecht it. The Rabbanan - permit him to do so, provided another blemish occurs later.
(b)We query Rebbi Eliezer's ruling however, from a Mishnah in Nega'im. The Mishnah there states that if a mark of Tzara'as (Baheres) got cut off - the Metzora becomes Tahor.
(c)Should the Metzora remove it himself however, Rebbi Eliezer rules that he will become Tahor - if he is stricken a second time and a Si'man Taharah occurs on the Baheres (since this is what would probably have happened even if he not removed the first Baheres).
(d)According to the Chachamim, he will remain Tamei until the second Baheres spreads to his whole body - because then he would certainly have been Tahor even if he had not removed the first Baheres.
(e)Alternatively, he might be Tahor, according to them - if the Baheres had diminished to less than the size of a bean (the minimum size for Tzara'as to be Tamei [see Tosfos DH 'ad she'Tifrach') by the time he cut if off.
6)
(a)What problem do we now have with Rebbi Eliezer?
(b)To answer the discrepancy, how do Rabah and Rav Yosef distinguish between a blemish on the body of a B'chor and Tzara'as on one's own body?
(c)Rava points out that the two rulings of the Rabbanan clash, too. How is that?
(d)How does Rava himself solve that discrepancy?
6)
(a)The problem with Rebbi Eliezer now is that - we see from here that Rebbi Eliezer does not decree forever under these circumstances, whereas in our Mishnah, he does.
(b)To answer the discrepancy, Rabah and Rav Yosef distinguish between a blemish on the body of a B'chor. In the case of the latter - if the decree would not be permanent, the owner would have nothing to lose by creating a blemish now, because if he didn't, he would have to wait for the next blemish anyway; whereas in the case of the former - making him wait for the next Baheres constitutes a loss, since if he hadn't cut off the first one, the Kohen may have decreed him Tahor straightaway.
(c)Rava points out that the two rulings of the Rabbanan clash too - because in our Mishnah, they permit the B'chor on the basis of the inspection of the second blemish, whereas in Nega'im, they only declare him Tahor if the original Baheres spreads to his whole body.
(d)Rava himself solves that discrepancy - by explaining that the decree, in each case, negates what the culprit was trying to achieve. In our Mishnah, they negated the blemish (as if it did not exist), and in Nega'im, they negated his action (of cutting off the Baheres).
7)
(a)We interpreted Rebbi Eliezer in Nega'im 'le'ke'she'Yivaled Lo Nega Acher Yit'har heimenu', as if Yit'har was written with a 'Vav' (Veyit'har [after he is cured from the second Baheres, he is also cured from the first]). How else does Rav Papa suggest we might interpret it?
(b)What does the Mishnah in Nega'im say about a Chasan during the Sheva B'rachos on whose flesh, Talis or clothes there appeared a mark of Tzara'as?
(c)In which other case does the Tana issue a similar ruling?
(d)How do the two sides of Rav Papa's She'eilah manifest themselves in the above two cases?
(e)What is the outcome of the She'eilah?
7)
(a)We interpreted Rebbi Eliezer in Nega'im 'le'ke'she'Yivaled Lo Nega Acher Yit'har heimenu', as if Yit'har was written with a 'Vav' Veyit'har [after he is cured from the second Baheres, he is also cured from the first]). Rav Papa suggests that we might read it - as it stands, in which case as soon as the second Baheres appears, he is Tahor from the first one.
(b)The Mishnah in Nega'im rules that a Chasan during the Sheva B'rachos on whose flesh, Talis or clothes there appeared a mark of Tzara'as - does not need to show it to a Kohen, until afterwards.
(c)The Tana issues a similar ruling - with regard to such a mark that appears on Yom-Tov.
(d)The two sides of Rav Papa's She'eilah manifest themselves in the above two cases - inasmuch as if we read it Yit'har, as soon as the mark appears, he is Tahor from the first Baheres, and does not need to show a Kohen the second one until after the seven days; whereas if we read it Veyit'har, until such time as he shows the second Baheres to a Kohen, he remains Tamei from the first one anyway.
(e)The outcome of the She'eilah is - Teiku (Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Ibayos').
8)
(a)Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira about someone who created a blemish on a B'chor and died. What was the She'eilah?
(b)On what grounds did he justify the She'eilah even assuming that, in connection with ...
1. ... someone who sold his Eved to a Nochri and died, we do penalize his son after him (by making him redeem the Eved, even if it means paying as much as ten times the sale price)? What makes that case more stringent than ours?
2. ... someone who left his work for Chol ha'Mo'ed and died, we do not penalize his son after him? What makes our case more stringent than that one?
(c)We resolve the She'eilah from a Mishnah in Shevi'is. What does the Tana say about a field whose owner ...
1. ... collected the loose thorns in the Sh'mitah year?
2. ... fertilized it, either by laying fertilizer or by placing animal pens in the field for one or two months at a time?
(d)Why the difference?
8)
(a)Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira about someone who created a blemish on a B'chor and died - whether the K'nas (the penalty) extends to the culprit's son (who will therefore not be permitted to eat it until it obtains another blemish) or not..
(b)He justified the She'eilah even assuming that, in connection with ...
1. ... someone who sold his Eved to a Nochri and died, we do penalize his son after him (by making him redeem the Eved, even if it means paying as much as ten times the sale price) - because there we are concerned for the Eved, who is deprived of Mitzvos, each additional day that he is allowed to remain with the Nochri.
2. ... someone who left his work for Chol ha'Mo'ed and died, we do not penalize his son after him - because there, the father only intended to sin (and the K'nas consists of not allowing him to carry out his intentions), whereas here he actually sinned before he died.
(c)We resolve the She'eilah from a Mishnah in Shevi'is, which rules that if the owner of a field ...
1. ... collected the loose thorns in the Sh'mitah year - he is permitted to sow the field on Motza'ei Shevi'is.
2. ... fertilized it, either by laying fertilizer or by placing animal pens in the field for one or two months at a time - he is forbidden to sow the field on Motza'ei Shevi'is ...
(d)... because, as opposed to the first case, he performed a major task.
9)
(a)With reference to the Mishnah in Shevi'is, what did Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina say about a case where the father died before Motza'ei Shevi'is?
(b)What does Rebbi Zeira prove from there?
(c)Based on which principle is Reuven, who was Metamei Shimon's Taharos, Patur min ha'Torah from paying damages
(d)What did Abaye say about Reuven's son being obligated to pay, in the event that Reuven died?
9)
(a)With reference to the Mishnah in Shevi'is, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina stated that in a case where the father died before Motza'ei Shevi'is - his son is allowed to sow the field on Motza'ei Shevi'is ...
(b)... from which Rebbi Zeira proves that - in our case too, the son will be allowed to Shecht the B'chor on the basis of the blemish that his deceased father created.
(c)If Reuven is Metamei Shimon's Taharos, he is Patur min ha'Torah from paying damages, based on the principle - Hezek she'Eino Nikar, Lo Sh'mei Hezek (abstract damages that cannot be discerned are not considered damages).
(d)Abaye rules that in the event that Reuven dies - his son is not obligated to pay (even mi'de'Rabbanan), because the Rabbanan only penalized the person who caused the damage, but not his son.