1)

(a)Food that a Yisrael cooks be'Meizid on Shabbos - is forbidden to him (in the form of a penalty) but permitted to others (see first Perek, Daf 15a).

(b)To reconcile this with the previous Drashah Kol she'Ti'avti l'cha ... (forbidding what comes through an Isur to be eaten min ha'Torah), we cite the Pasuk "Ki Kodesh Hi lachem" - which we Darshen "hi Kodesh", 've'Ein Ma'asehah Kodesh' (which overrides Kol she'Ti'avti l'cha).

(c)Consequently, if someone plows with an ox and a donkey or threshes with a muzzled cow, the result of his labor is permitted - Kal va'Chomer from Shabbos, which is more stringent than it is (seeing as it carries with it a Chiyuv Misah).

(d)The same Kal va'Chomer does not apply to Basar be'Chalav (which by the same token, is less stringent than Shabbos) - because, unlike the previous Isurim (which are only the result of Meleches Shabbos), it is an intrinsic object of Isur.

2)

(a)From the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei (in connection with K'lai ha'Kerem) "Pen Tikdash ha'Melei'ah" (the acronym of 'Pen Tukad Eish'[i.e. is Asur be'Hana'ah]) - because it implies that K'lai ha'Kerem must be burned, but not Klai Zera'im.

(b)Bearing in mind that our Sugya is discussing both the Isur Achilah and the Isur Hana'ah, we suggest that perhaps K'lai Zera'im is only precluded from the Isur Hana'ah, but not from the Isur Achilah.

(c)We answer by citing the Hekesh "Behemt'cha Lo Sarbi'a Kil'ayim, Sadcha Lo Sizra Kil'ayim" - comparing K'lai Zera'im to K'lai Beheimah, in that the former, like the latter, is permitted even to eat.

(d)And we learn that K'lai Beheimah is Mutar ba'Achilah - from the fact that the Torah forbids it to be brought on the Mizbe'ach (indicating that it is permitted to a Hedyot).

3)

(a)We suggest that if someone transgresses and Shechts Oso ve'es B'no on the same day, the second animal should be Asur because of Kol she'Ti'avti l'cha ... . Oso ve'es B'no belongs to the category of Mechusar Z'man (Shechting an animal before its time) ...

(b)... which we already know is permitted to a Hedyot, since the Torah forbids bringing it on the Mizbe'ach.

(c)Assuming that the Kashya 'Shilu'ach ha'Kein Litsar?' is speaking where one took the mother bird from the nest without sending it away - one is then supposed to send it away afterwards, to avoid receiving Malkos.

(d)And we refute the suggestion by pointing out that - since one is obligated to send it away towards the fields, it would be impossible to declare it Asur, since anyone can catch it, and eat it, without even realizing that it is forbidden).

4)

(a)We might also have refuted the suggesation 'Shilu'ach ha'Kein Litsar' - by learning a Kal-va'Chomer from Shabbos, as we did earlier on the Amud.

(b)Alternatively, we might interpret the suggestion - with reference to the mother bird, which ought to be forbidden even if one sent it away, due to Kol she'Ti'avti l'cha).

(c)Only we prefer to give an independent answer pertaining to each case in question, rather than learning it from another case.

(d)And we prove this to be the correct interpretation, based on the earlier Kashya from 'Choresh be'Shor va'Chamor' and 'Chosem Pi Parah ve'Dash bah' - where we did not ask from the actual animals themselves with which the sin was performed, but from the outcome of the sin. Similarly here, it is not the bird, which was hitherto permitted, and became forbidden after taking it, but from the fact that it is forbidden to take it that ought to render it permanently forbidden.

5)

(a)Resh Lakish learns from the double expression "u'Vashel Mevushal" in the Pasuk in Bo [in connection with the Korban Pesach] "Al Tochlu Mimenu Na u'Vashel Mevushal ... " that - there is another case of a cooked object that is Asur; namely, Basar be'Chalav.

(b)Rebbi learns - the same thing from the superfluous Pasuk in Re'ei (in connection with blood) "Lo Sochlenu".

(c)Rebbi's Pasuk is referring to the blood of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin (Kodshim that have been redeemed, which may be eaten like Chulin, but remain forbidden to shear or to work with like Kodshim).

(d)Rebbi use this Pasuk to prohibit Basar be'Chalav and not blood - because we already have three Pesukim for blood (as we learned earlier).

6)

(a)One of the thirteen principles of Rebbi Yishmael is Davar ha'Lamed me'Inyano meaning that - when the Torah compares Din a. to Din b., and a. could refer to a number of possible cases, then we choose the case which is in the same context as b.

(b)Similarly here, when Rebbi had a choice of topics to which the superfluous "Lo Sochlenu" could pertain, he chose the one that is most similar to Pesulei ha'Mukdashin - Basar be'Chalav, which consist of two different species, like Pesulei ha'Mukdashin, as we just explained.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan now asked Resh Lakish that - seeing as we already know from Rebbi's Pasuk that Basar be'Chalav is Asur ba'Achilah, why he needs to come on to a different source? Why is Rebbi's source not good enough?

(d)To which Resh Lakish replied that - we need "u'Vashel Mevushal" to teach us that Basar be'Chalav is Asur be'Hana'ah too, like a Pesach Mevushal (which, like all Kodshim P'sulim that are no longer alive, are Asur ba'Achilah and Hana'ah, whereas Pesulei ha'Mukdashin are not).

7)

(a)Rebbi learns from the two Pesukim "ki Am Kadosh Atah" (written in the same Pasuk as "Lo Sevashel G'di") and "ve'Lo Sih'yeh Kadesh" (in Ki Seitzei, forbidding prostitution) - a Gezeirah-Shavah, that just as the latter Pasuk refers to an Isur of Hana'ah, so too, is Basar be'Chalav Asur be'Hana'ah.

(b)de'bei Rebbi Eliezer learns it from the same Pasuk in Re'ei "Lo Sochlu Kol Neveilah ... O Machor le'Nochri ... Lo Sevashel G'di ... " which teaches us that one may not sell Basar be'Chalav to a Nochri or give it to a Ger Toshav (because it is Asur be'Hana'ah).

(c)Whereas Tana de'bei Yishmael learns from the fact that the Torah writes the Pasuk "Lo Sevashel G'di ... " three times that - Basar be'Chalav incorporates three Isurim, an Isur Bishul, an Isur Achilah and an Isur Hana'ah.

8)

(a)Isi ben Yehudah in a Beraisa learns from the Gezeirah-Shavah "ki Am Kadosh Atah" and the Pasuk "ve'Anshei Kodesh Tih'yun Li, u'Basar ba'Sadeh T'reifah Lo Socheilu" that - just as a T'reifah is Asur to eat, so too, is Basar be'Chalav.

(b)And he learns from a Kal-va'Chomer from Orlah (which is not the result of an Aveirah), that Basar be'Chalav (which is) is certainly Asur be'Hana'ah.

(c)We query this Kal-va'Chomer however, inasmuch as we cannot learn Basar be'Chalav ...

1. ... from Orlah - because it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher (which Orlah did not).

2. ... from Chametz ba'Pesach, which we bring as a Binyan Av to replace the Kal va'Chomer from Orlah - because unlike Chametz ba'Pesach, Basar be'Chalav does not carry a sentence of Kareis for the transgressor.

(d)So we try to learn the prohibition of Achilah and Hana'ah from K'lai ha'Kerem (which does not carry an Isur Kareis either, to replace Chametz ba'Pesach.

9)

(a)The problem with the initial D'rashah, which learns the Isur Achilah from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Am Kadosh" "Anshei Kodesh"), and the Isur Hana'ah from a Kal va'Chomer from Orlah is - why can we not learn the Isur Achilah too from Orlah?

(b)When we answer 'Choresh be'Shor va'Chamor ve'Chosem Pi Parah ve'Dash bah Yochi'ach' we mean that - if we did learn the Isur Achilah from Orlah, we would negate the Kal-va'Chomer with the Pircha based on these two La'avin, with which an Aveirah was performed, yet the result of the Aveirah is permitted to eat.

(c)And we query the Tana who, following the Kashya 'Mah le'Chametz ba'Pesach she'Kein Anush Kareis', answers 'K'lai ha'Kerem Yochi'ach' in that one would have expected him to reply - Orlah Yochi'ach, and then to learn the Isur Hana'ah from a Mah Matzinu from both of them.

(d)Rav Ashi explains that the Tana does not do so, because we could then have asked a Pircha from another Isur - that of Neveilah, which is Asur ba'Achilah but Mutar be'Hana'ah.

10)

(a)Rav Mordechai citing Resh Lakish refutes Rav Ashi's explanation because - on a Mah ha'Tzad one can only ask an internal Pircha, not an external one (such as Neveilah is).

(b)And the reason that we cannot learn the Isur Hana'ah from a Mah ha'Tzad from Orlah and Chametz ba'Pesach is - because they both involve commodities that grow from the ground, whereas Basar be'Chalav does not.

(c)The problem with this explanation is that - we can ask the same Pircha even if we now learn the Isur Hana'ah just from Kil'ayim.

(d)Rav Mordechai quoting Resh Lakish solves it - by rejecting a Pircha on a Kal va'Chomer or a single Binyan Av (from one Pasuk), if it is not either a Chumra or a Kula (depending on the nature of the Limud), neither of which the fact that it grows from the ground is.

11)

(a)Bearing in mind that we are not learning from K'lai ha'Kerem only, but from Orlah and Chametz ba'Pesach as well, the Kashya remains - why we do not ask that, unlike Basar be'Chalav, they all grow from the ground (seeing as on a Mah ha'Tzad one may ask even Pirchos that are neither a Chumra nor a Kula.

(b)So Rav Mordechai in the name of Resh Lakish divides the Din of Binyan Av into three categories. An example of ...

1. ... Chada me'Chada Kula ve'Chumra Parchinan (Kol-d'hu Lo Parchinan) is - Mah le'Orlah she'Kein Lo Haysah lah Sha'as ha'Kosher'.

2. ... Chada mi'Tarti Afilu Kol-d'hu Parchinan is - Mah le'ha'Tzad-ha'Shaveh she'Bahen she'Kein Gidulei Karka.

(c)And he concludes with a Binyan Av from three sources - on which one may ask even a Pircha Kol-d'hu, provided there is a Pircha of a Kula or a Chumra pertaining to the third case (which needs the first two to counter it. Otherwise ...

(d)... such as in our case, where there is no Pircha of a Kula or Chumra on Kil'ayim, one cannot ask a Pircha Kol-d'hu (such as Mah le'Kulhu she'Kein Gidulei Karka).