1)

(a)We just resolved the discrepancy in Rebbi Meir. As for Rebbi Yehudah, even though he decrees Shogeg on account of Mezid by Isurim d'Oraisa, he did not decree in the case of someone who planted a tree in Shevi'is b'Shogeg, which he permits him to retain because the people in his town were meticulous in their observance of Shevi'is, and no decree was necesssary.

(b)When someone called a certain man from Rebbi Yehudah's town a Ger son of a Ger, he replied that he did not eat the fruit of Shevi'is like the person who called him the name did.

2)

(a)The difference between the payment of someone who ate Terumah b'Shogeg and someone who ate it b'Mezid is that whereas the former must pay with Chulin fruit that is fit to eat (and that does become Terumah), the latter can pay money.

(b)We learn the former ruling from the Pasuk in Emor 've'Nasan la'Kohen Es ha'Kodesh".

(c)The Beraisa requires someone who ate Terumah Teme'ah b'Shogeg to pay Chulin Tehorin.

(d)In the event that he paid Chulin Temei'in, Sumchus in the name of Rebbi Meir rules 'b'Shogeg Tashlumav Tashlumin, b'Mezid Ein Tashlumav Tashlumin'. The Chachamim say 'Echad Zeh v'Echad Zeh Tashlumav Tashlumin, v'Chozer u'Meshalem Chulin Tehorim.

3)

(a)Even though he already paid once, the Chachamim obligate the one who ate Terumah b'Shogeg to pay again as a Kenas (for having paid Terumah Teme'ah instead of Tehorah).

(b)The problem with Sumchus' ruling is that seeing as he ate Terumah Tehorah (which is not fit for a Kohen to eat during the days that he is Tamei), and paid him Chulin Temei'in, he seems to have done the Kohen a favor (as per his intention of paying Chulin Temi'in, even though it becomes Terumah), so what is the point of making him pay again?

(c)Rava (or Kadi) therefore amends the Beraisa. According to the new version, what does the sinner pay if he ate Terumah Te'me'ah (according to both Tana'im)?

(d)Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan then argue over what he must do if he ate Terumah Tehorah, and paid Chulin Teme'in (instead of Chulin Tehorin).

4)

(a)When Rebbi Meir says 'be'Mezid Ein Tashlumav Tashlumin' he means that although what he paid is valid, he is obligated to pay again ...

(b)... and the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim is whether 'Konsin Shogeg Atu Mezid' (the Chachamim) or not (Rebbi Meir).

(c)Rebbi Meir does not decree here Shogeg Atu Mezid like he does by Metamei, Medamei and Menasech because, seeing as the sinner made the effort to compensate, it is eveident that he is trying to make up for sinning, so what would be the point of punishing him for having erred in his payment.

5)

(a)We query Rebbi Meir from a Beraisa, which discusses the blood of a Korban that became Tamei and whose blood the Kohen sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach. Min ha'Torah, the Korban is Kosher because the Kohen Gadol's Tzitz atones for the sin of Tum'ah.

(b)The Tana rules that if the Kohen sprinkled the Tamei blood b'Mezid, the Korban is not Kosher (mid'Rabanan), and the owner is forbidden to eat the meat, but b'Shogeg, it may.

(c)Rebbi Meir (who does not dispute the Beraisa's ruling) does not decree Shogeg Atu Mezid here because like in the previous case, the sinner made the effort to bring his Korban, so it seems senseless to penalize him for a error (that he did not even make).

(d)We give the same answer regarding the Mishnah in Terumos 'ha'Me'aser b'Shabbos b'Shogeg Yochal, b'Mezid Lo Yochal', and the Mishnah there 'ha'Matbil Kelim b'Shabbos, b'Shogeg Yishtamesh ba'Hem ... '. The Isur that the sinner transgressed in both of these cases is that it resembles 'Mesaken' (repairing [making fit for use] which in turn, is a Toldah of Makeh ba'Patish.

6)

(a)We also query Rebbi Yehudah from his own ruling in a Beraisa, which discusses Perech-nuts of Orlah. These are not Batel even in a thousand because they are Chashuv (significant), and mid'Rabanan, a Davar Chashuv is not subject to Bitul.

(b)If they were to break in half and fall into Heter by themselves they would become Batel.

(c)According to Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah, if the owner broke them, even b'Shogeg (not with the intention of negating them for them to become Batel) and they fell into the Heter, they would not become Batel.

(d)Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon say 'b'Shogeg Ya'alu, b'Mezid Lo Ya'alu'.

(e)Despite the fact Perech-nuts are not Batel mid'Rabanan, Rebbi Yehudah decrees Shogeg on account of Mezid because he suspects that the owner will break the nuts b'Mezid and claim that he did it b'Shogeg.

7)

(a)We now discuss a discrepancy in Rebbi Yosi (whom we just cited). The Shi'ur Bitul of Orlah and Kil'ei ha'Kerem is one in two hundred.

(b)The Mishnah nevertheless forbids picking the fruit from a sapling of Orlah or Kil'ei ha'Kerem that became mixed up with other saplings (even though there is two hundred times as much fruit on the other trees) because whatever is attached to the ground does not become Batel

(c)The Tana Kama permits fruit that is subsequently picked from it (b'Di'eved) only on condition that it is not picked in order to be Mevatel it. The reason that it is Batel is because the owner probably thought that it was Batel when it was still attached, making him a Shogeg.

(d)Rebbi Yosi is more lenient than the Tana Kama of the current Mishnah. According to him even if he picked the fruit with the express intention of being Mevatel it, it becomes Batel.

8)

(a)To reconcile Rebbi Yosi here with Rebbi Yosi in the Beraisa of Perech-nuts, who said 'be'Mezid Lo Ya'alu' Rava explains that nobody in his right mind would normally plant a tree of Orlah in his orchard without a mark of identification. Consequently, due to the rare incidence of this case, Chazal did not issue a decree on it. Isur falling into Heter on the other hand, is common; therefore they did.

(b)Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan 'Chazakah Ein Adam Oser Es Karmo bi'Neti'ah Achas' (like Rava).

9)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that Kohanim who render someone's Korban, Pigul b'Mezid, are obligated to pay.

(b)The Beraisa rules that if someone is working with his friend in Taharos or Kodshei Mizbe'ach and tells him that the Taharos ...

1. ... became Tamei or the Kodshim Pigul he is believed.

2. ... with which he worked on an earlier occasion became Tamei, or the Kodshim, Pigul is not believed.

10)

(a)According to Abaye, the difference between the Reisha and the Seifa is the fact that the latter is no longer 'be'Yado'. Rava disagrees inasmuch as he does not require 'be'Yado'; and the reason that the Kohen is not believed in the latter case is because on the previous occasion that the Kohen met him, he failed to mention the Pigul, suggesting that he fabricated the facts later.

(b)Rebbi Ami initially thought like Abaye, until Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Yosi said to him 'Mah E'eseh, she'ha'Torah He'eminaso'.

(c)Rebbi Yitzchak bar Bisna cited as a source for this the Pasuk (regarding the Avodah on Yom-Kippur) "v'Chol Adam Lo Yiheyeh b'Ohel Mo'ed", in spite of which he is believed to say that he was Mefagel one of the Korbanos (see Tosfos DH 'de'Chi') ...

(d)... even though he only told everybody about the Pigul after it was no longer in his hands.

11)

(a)We refute the above proof from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos, by suggesting that perhaps they heard the Kohen Gadol announcing the Pigul. We reject this counter-proof however on the grounds that if we did not believe him, we would have no way of knowing that he was not announcing the Pigul after the Korban had been brought b'Kashrus.

(b)We reinstate the counter-proof however by pointing out that the Kohanim could have been watching the Kohen Gadol via the Pishpesh (one of two small side-doors that opened to the Heichal, through which they could see the Kohen Gadol performing the Avodah).

12)

(a)Rebbi Ami ...

1. ... asked the Sofer who claimed that he had failed to write the Holy Names in the Sefer-Torah that he had written for so-and-so, Lishman whose possession the Sefer-Torah currently was.

2. ... subsequently ruled, when the Sofer replied that the Sefer was already in the hands of the purchaser that, in that case, it was no longer b'Yado, and that, although he was believed to lose his remuneration, he was not believed to invalidate the Sefer.

3. ... replied to Rebbi Yirmeyahu, who asked on what basis he should lose the remuneration for the entire Sefer, and not just for the Names that a Sefer-Torah without the Names of Hash-m was worthless.

(b)One could not simply overwrite the Names of Hash-m to render the Sefer-Torah Kosher because Rebbi Ami held like the Chachamim of Rebbi Yehudah, who maintain that this would not render the Sefer, Kosher.

(c)This is based on a Machlokes in a Beraisa, in which Rebbi Yehudah and the Chachamim argue over someone who wrote Yehudah (but omitted the 'Vav') when he really should have written Hash-m's Name. According to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah there he can validate the Sefer by overwriting the Name of Hash-m.

2. ... The Chachamim the Sefer-Torah will remain Pasul.

(d)We conclude however, that Rebbi Ami's ruling might even comply with the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah who only permits one Name that has been corrected in this way, but not an entire Sefer-Torah, which would look blotched and would therefore be Pasul, even according to him.

13)

(a)When a Sofer claimed that in the course of preparing the Sefer-Torah that he had written for so-and-so, he had not made the Gevilin (the parchment) Lishman, Rebbi Avahu ruled that since he was believed to lose his remuneration, he was also believed to invalidate the entire Sefer-Torah.

(b)Rebbi Ami would agree with Rebbi Avahu's ruling on the grounds that whereas in his case, we could attribute the Sofer's claim to his belief that he would only lose the remuneration for the Names of Hash-m (a relatively small loss), like Rebbi Yirmeyahu; whereas in this case, he would be unlikely to invalidate an entire Sefer-Torah (and lose all his remuneration) unless it was true.