(a)How does the Gemara know that when Rebbi Yochanan said his K'lal ('Ein Lemedin min ha'Kelalos, va'Afilu be'Makom she'Ne'emar Bo Chutz'), he was not referring directly to our Mishnah?
(b)In spite of the principle that women are exempt from Mitzvos Asei which are time-related, they are Chayavos in 'Matzah, Simchah and Hakhel'. From where do we know each of these?
(c)On the other hand, they are Peturos from 'Talmud-Torah, Piryah ve'Rivyah and Pidyon ha'Ben', even though these are not time-related. From where do we know each of these?
(a)When Rebbi Yochanan said 'Ein Lemedin min ha'Kelalos, va'Afilu be'Makom she'Ne'emar Bo Chutz', he cannot have been referring directly to our Mishnah - since our Mishnah actually says 'Chutz'.
(b)We know that women are Chayavos to eat Matzah - from the Hekesh of "Lo Sochal Alav Chametz" to "Shiv'as Yamim Tochal Alav Matzos" (Re'eh), which appear in the same Pasuk, and from which we learn that whoever is Chayav the former is also Chayav the latter. Women are Chayavos in the Mitzvah of Simchah (eating Shalmei Simchah) - from the Pasuk "ve'Samachta Atah u'*Veisecha*" (Re'eh). And they are Chayavos to fulfill the Mitzvah of Hakhel - because the Torah writes there "ha'Anashim, ve'ha'Nashim ve'ha'Taf" (Vayelech).
(c)Women are Peturos from Torah-study - from the Pasuk "ve'Limadtem Osam es Beneichem" (Eikev) - from which we derive 'Beneichem ve'lo Benosechem'. They are Peturos from Piryah ve'Rivyah - from the Pasuk in Bereishis "Pru u'Revu, u'Mil'u es ha'Aretz ve'Chiveshuha", from which we derive that those who are included in Kibush (conquering the land) i.e. men, are included in the Mitzvah of Pru u'Revu, to exclude women, who do not tend to participate in the former, are not Chayavos in the latter. And they are Peturos from the Mitzvah of Pidyon ha'Ben - from the word "Tifdeh" (Bo), which can also be read "Tipadeh", to teach us that whoever is included in "Tipadeh" (being redeemed i.e. males), is included in "Tifdeh" redeemimg), but not females, who are not redeemed, because the Torah writes there "ve'Chol Bechor Banecha Tifdeh", ' Banecha ve'lo Benosecha'.
(a)What is the difference between something which a Zav carries, and something which carries a Zav, according to the Mishnah in Zavin?
(b)What does the Mishnah in Zavin omit, when it presents the Klal 'Kol she'ha'Zav Nisa Alav Chutz min ha'Ra'uy le'Mishkav u'Moshav?
(c)What is the exception to the Klal in our Mishnah of 'ha'Kol Nikach be'Kesef Ma'aser Chutz min ha'Mayim u'min 'ha'Melach'?
(a)Whatever a Zav carries is Tamei, writes the Mishnah in Zavin, whereas whatever carries a Zav is Tahor, unless it is designated for lying or sitting on, or unless it is a person.
(b)The Mishnah which mentions Tum'as Mishkav and Tum'as Moshav of a Zav, omits the wooden handle attached to the saddle, which the rider holds on to, which also receives Tum'ah from a Zav - it is called 'Tum'as Merkav'.
(c)The exception to the Klal in our Mishnah of 'ba'Kol Me'arvin Chutz min ha'Mayim u'min 'ha'Melach' - is mushrooms, which cannot be bought with the money of Ma'aser Sheni.
(a)We have learned in our Mishnah that both water and salt are not eligible for use with regard to Eruvin, nor can they be purchased with the money of Ma'aser Sheni. Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina agree that salt-water may be used for Eruvin. Why is that?
(b)Why does one of them forbid even salt-water to be purchased with Ma'aser money?
(a)Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina agree that salt-water may be used for an Eruv - because it is a 'Mazon'; since it can be used for dipping in one's bread.
(b)One of them forbids even salt-water to be purchased with Ma'aser money - because it is not called a P'ri (it does not grow from the ground), and we shall soon see how we learn from a 'Klal u'Frat 'u'Chelal', that only what is called a Pri may be purchased with Ma'aser Sheni money.
(a)Rebbi Yehudah ben Gadish testified before Rebbi Eliezer that in his father's house, they used to purchase fish-juice with Ma'aser-Sheni money. What did Rebbi Eliezer say to him?
(b)How does this present Rav Yitzchak, who specifically quoted the Beraisa which permits salt-water, in connection with Ma'aser, with a problem?
(c)How does Rav Yosef resolve this problem?
(a)Rebbi Eliezer suggested to Rebbi Yehudah ben Gadish - that perhaps he only heard about purchasing fish-juice with Ma'aser-Sheni money - when some of the fish-fat itself was mixed with the juice, but not otherwise.
(b)We see from this Beraisa that even the most lenient of the Tana'im permit only the purchase of fish-juice, which is called a Pri - so how can Rebbi Yitzchak quote a Beraisa which permits buying salt-water with Ma'aser Sheni money?
(c)Rav Yosef replies - that the Beraisa of Rebbi Yitzchak, which permits the purchase of salt-water with Ma'aser-Sheni money, speaks when one added some oil (which is a Pri).
(a)Under which conditions may one buy water and salt together with oil? Why does one need to mention the water and the salt at all?
(b)What does ben Bag Bag learn from ...
1. ... "ba'Bakar" (written in Re'eh in connection with Ma'aser-Sheni)?
2. ... "u'va'Tzon"?
3. ... "u'va'Yayin"?
4. ... "u'va'Shechar"?
(a)Buying water and salt with money of Ma'aser Sheni is permitted - only if one absorbs their price in the price of the oil.
(b)ben Bag Bag learns from ...
1. ... "ba'Bakar" - that one may purchase (with one's Ma'aser Sheni money) an ox together with its skin, which may be used for Chulin purposes without the need to redeem it.
2. ... "u'va'Tzon" - that one may purchase a sheep together with its wool (which is not an intrinsic part of the animal, like the skin is).
3. ... "u'va'Yayin" - that one may even purchase the jar that contains the wine together with the wine (which does not even grow with the wine, like the wool does).
4. ... "u'va'Shechar" - that one is even permitted to buy the seconds of wine (the dregs to which water has been added).
(a)Now that the Torah writes ...
1. ... "Shechar", why does it need to add "Yayin"?
2. ... "Yayin", why does it need to write "Tzon"?
(b)Rebbi Yochanan has a problem as to why the Torah finds it necessary to add "Bakar". Why can we not say that, had Bakar been omitted, we would have included the skin from "Tzon", but not the wool?
(c)What did Rebbi Yochanan say he would do for anyone who would explain to him why the Torah wrote 'Bakar'?
(a)Had the Torah written ...
1. ... "Shechar" and not Yayin, we would have permitted the purchase of figs from Ke'ilah, which intoxicate like wine; but not the jar together with the wine (which is a separate entity).
2. ... "Yayin" and not "Tzon", we would have permitted the purchase of the jar together with the wine that it contains, since the jar is needed to guard the wine; but not the wool, together with the sheep (since the wool is not needed like the jar is).
(b)Had the Torah intended to permit the skin of the animal (because it grows with it intrinsically), but not the wool of the sheep, then surely it should have inserted "Bakar" (which has skin but no wool) rather than "Tzon". By inserting "Tzon", the message would be that both the skin and the wool are permitted.
(c)That is why Rebbi Yochanan said that he would carry the clothes of anyone who could explain to him why, according to ben Bag-Bag, the Torah wrote "Bakar" as well as "Tzon", to the bath-house (something which is normally performed by a slave for his master).
(a)The Tana in a Beraisa expounding on a Pasuk in Re'eh, explains "ve'Nasata ha'Kesef be'Chol Asher Te'aveh Nafshecha" - Klal, "ba'Bakar u'va'Tzon, u'va'Yayin u'va'Shechar" - Prat, "ba'Chol Asher Te'aveh Nafshecha" - Klal. He maintains that we learn 'Pri mi'Pri ve'Gidulei Karka'. What does this mean and what does it come to exclude?
(b)Rebbi Yehudah ben Gadish (quoted at the end of the previous Amud),and Rebbi Eliezer both agree that fish may be bought with Ma'aser-Sheni money. On what basis do they argue with the Tana of this Beraisa?
(c)Initially, the Gemara thinks that Abaye explains that according to a third Tana, who learns a 'Klal u'Frat u'Chelal', but with the formula 'Velad Velados ha'Aretz', fish are included in the 'Klal u'Frat u'Chelal'. Why is this problematic from another statement of Abaye, where he says that one receives four Malkus for eating a Putisa (a type of water-insect), five for an ant and six for a hornet. How many Malkus should one receive for eating a Putisa?
(d)How does Ravina then explain the Machlokes between the two ways of learning the 'Klal u'Frat u'Chelal'.
(a)'Pri mi'Pri' - in the context of what one may purchase with Ma'aser-Sheni money, means one thing which grows from another e.g. a calf from a cow, a lamb from a sheep or grapes from seeds. 'Gidulei Karka' - means something that grows from the ground. 'Pri mi'Pri' - excludes mushrooms, water and salt; 'Gidulei Karka' excludes fish.
(b)Rebbi Yehudah ben Gadish and Rebbi Eliezer, who both agree that fish may be bought with Ma'aser-Sheni money - learn a 'Ribuy, Miyut ve'Ribuy', rather than a 'Klal u'Frat u'Chelal'. By doing so, they include everything from the Ribuy ("be'Chol Asher Te'aveh Nafsecha"), and exclude only a limited amount of things from the final 'Prat' (i.e. water and salt according to Rebbi Yehudah ben Gadish, and fish-juice, too, according to Rebbi Eliezer).
(c)If fish are considered 'Gidulei Karka', like Abaye thought to say, then someone who ate a Putisa ought to receive five Malkus (including one for eating a Sheretz ha'Aretz), and not just four (two for a Sheretz ha'Mayim, one for "mi'Besaram Lo Sochelu" and one for "ve'Chol Asher Ein Lo Senapir ve'Kaskeses Lo Sochelu").
(d)Ravina ultimately explains the two interpretations of the 'K'lal u'F'rat u'Chelal' like this: the Tana who requires only 'Pri mi'Pri ve'Gidulei Karka' includes birds (who also feed from the ground); whereas the Tana who requires also 'Velad Velados ha'Aretz' excludes also birds.