BLOOD FOR WHICH ONE IS NOT LIABLE
Version #2 (Beraisa) Suggestion: Human milk should be forbidden;
A Kal va'Chomer should forbid it! We are lenient about Maga of Tamei animals (they cannot become Tamei while alive. Zivah and Nidah do not apply to them), yet we forbid the milk of non-Kosher animals. We are stringent about Maga of people, all the more so their milk should be forbidden!
Rejection: "Zeh Lachem ha'Tamei" teaches that these (Tamei animals) are forbidden, but not human milk.
Suggestion: Perhaps human milk is permitted, for it is found only in females, but human blood, which is even in males, is forbidden!
Rejection (Rav Sheshes): There is no Mitzvah to refrain from eating human blood, not even a mere stringency.
(Mishnah): One tears the heart to remove the blood. If it was not torn, he does not transgress.
(Rav): This applies only to the heart of a bird, for it does not have a k'Zayis of blood. The heart of an animal has a k'Zayis of blood, one is Chayav Kares for it.
Question (Beraisa): A Lav forbids the following bloods -- of the spleen, heart, kidneys, and limbs;
The following are forbidden, but one is not liable for them -- blood of people, Sheratzim and Remashim.
Answer: The Beraisa discusses blood of the heart itself. Rav discusses (circulating) blood that entered (the chambers of) the heart.
Question: Blood of the heart itself is just like blood of (other) limbs, which is explicitly taught!
Counter-question: Blood of the kidneys is blood of limbs, yet both are explicitly taught!
Answer to both questions: We must say that the Beraisa taught Peratim, and later taught a Klal including the Peratim.
Question: (Kares is only for Dam ha'Nefesh. When the animal is dying,) from where would blood come to the chambers of the heart?
Answer (R. Zeira): When the animal is dying, blood is sucked from the neck to the heart.
DAM HA'NEFESH AND DAM TAMTZIS
(Mishnah): One is liable for Dam (ha'Nefesh, i.e.) that exudes at the time of death.
Question: What are the Simanim of Dam ha'Nefesh of bloodletting?
Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): The entire time it is flowing (it is Dam ha'Nefesh);
Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): It is from the first black drop and onwards.
Question (against Reish Lakish - Beraisa): Dam ha'Nefesh of bloodletting is when it is flowing;
Dam Tamtzis is when it drips.
Suggestion: What drips is Dam Tamtzis, whether this is before or after what flows.
Answer: No, it excludes only black blood. What comes (after this,) before or after what flows, is Dam ha'Nefesh, even if it drips.
Question (against Reish Lakish - Beraisa): Dam ha'Nefesh (text of Shitah) is when it is flowing. This excludes what is before and after this, for it drips.
Answer: Tana'im argue about this:
(Beraisa - R. Elazar): Dam ha'Nefesh is when it is flowing;
R. Shimon says, it is from the first black drop and onwards.
(Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): "V'Dam Chalalim Yishteh" teaches that blood that exudes after death is a Mashkeh and is Machshir, but not what flows.
Question (R. Yirmeyah): If one let blood from an animal and collected the blood in two cups, what is the law?
All agree that one is liable for (eating) the first. (It includes Dam ha'Nefesh.) Is one liable for the second?
Answer (R. Zeira): R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about this:
(Reish Lakish): If one let blood from an animal and collected the blood in two cups, he is liable for (eating) both. (After it blackens, all blood is Dam ha'Nefesh);
(R. Yochanan): He is liable only once. (perhaps all of the blood in the second cup dripped).
(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): One is liable for Dam Tamtzis.
(R. Elazar): R. Yehudah agrees that Dam Tamtzis is invalid for Kaparah. "Ki ha'Dam Hu ba'Nefesh Yechaper" teaches that only blood that exudes when the animal dies is Mechaper.
Support (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak - Beraisa) Question: What do we learn from "Kol Dam"?
Answer - Question: Perhaps "Ki ha'Dam Hu ba'Nefesh Yechaper" teaches that one might have thought that one is liable only for Dam ha'Nefesh of Kodshim. What is the source to be Mechayev for Dam Chulin and Dam Tamtzis?
Answer: "Kol Dam" includes these.
A Stam Sifra (Beraisa that expounds verse of Vayikra) is assumed to be R. Yehudah.
(Mishnah - R. Akiva): One brings Asham Taluy for Safek Me'ilah;
Version #1 (Rashi): R. Akiva agrees that he does not bring Me'ilaso (Keren, the value of what he benefitted from Hekdesh) and an added Chomesh) until he finds out (that he definitely transgressed), then he brings it with Asham Vadai.
Version #2 (R. Gershom): R. Akiva agrees that if he wants, he need not bring Keren, Chomesh or Asham Taluy until he finds out, then he brings the money, Chomesh and Asham Vadai. (end of Version #2)
R. Tarfon: Why should he bring two Ashamos?! Rather, he brings the money, Chomesh and an Asham worth at least two Shekalim and stipulates:
If I truly transgressed, this is the money and Asham I must bring;
If it is a doubt (this will be explained), the money is for Nedavah, and the Asham is Asham Taluy.
(He can do so because) the same Korban brought for definite Me'ilah is brought for a Safek.
R. Akiva: That is reasonable if the (Keren of Safek) Me'ilah was small (perhaps he pays the money needlessly, but this saves him from bringing a second Korban);
if the Me'ilah was (large, e.g.) 100 Manos, it is better to bring Asham Taluy for two Shekalim and not to pay 100 Manos that he might not owe!
R. Akiva agrees with R. Tarfon regarding a small Me'ilah.
(Gemara - Beraisa - R. Akiva): "V'Im Nefesh" obligates Asham Taluy for Safek Me'ilah;
Suggestion: R. Akiva holds that Lemedim Elyon mi'Tachton (we learn about a Parshah from the following Parshah. The Parshah of Me'ilah is followed by Asham Taluy, to teach that Asham Taluy applies to Me'ilah), and Chachamim hold that Ein Lemedim Elyon mi'Tachton.
Rejection (Rav Papa): No, all agree that Lemedim Elyon mi'Tachton. We have no other source that cattle (for Olah or Chatas) must be slaughtered in the north (half of the Azarah. Surely, all agree to this law)!
Rather, Chachamim learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Mitzvos-Mitzvos" from Chatas (Chelev) - just like there, it discusses something punishable by Kares if Mezid and Chatas if Shogeg, also Asham Taluy is brought only for Safek of such an Aveirah;
One is not Chayav Kares for Me'ilah;
(Beraisa - Rebbi): If one transgressed Me'ilah b'Mezid, he is Chayav Misah b'Yedei Shamayim;
Chachamim say, he transgressed a (mere) Lav.
R. Akiva learns from the Gezeirah Shavah that Asham Taluy is brought for an Aveirah that obligates a Korban Kavu'a (it is the same for rich and poor), not for an Aveirah that obligates a Korban Oleh v'Yored;
Chachamim hold that Ein Gezeirah Shavah l'Mechetzah. (We learn all possible laws from a Gezeirah Shavah, in both directions);
Inference: R. Akiva holds that Yesh Gezeirah Shavah l'Mechetzah!
Retraction: No, rather, all agree that Ein Gezeirah Shavah l'Mechetzah;
R. Akiva learns from "v'Im Nefesh" - the "Vav" connects the Parshiyos, and Lemedim Elyon mi'Tachton;
Chachamim use the "Vav" to teach that Lemedim Tachton mi'Elyon, that Asham Taluy must be worth at least two Shekalim, just like Asham Me'ilos.
R. Akiva holds Ein Hekesh l'Mechtzah (we learn Elyon mi'Tachton and Tachton mi'Elyon).
Objection: This implies that Chachamim hold Yesh Hekesh l'Mechtzah. This is not the Halachah!
Retraction: Rather, all agree that Ein Hekesh l'Mechtzah;
Chachamim say that the Gezeirah Shavah "Mitzvos-Mitzvos" overrides the Hekesh.
R. Akiva learns from "Zos Toras ha'Asham" that all Ashamos have the same law. They must cost at least two Shekalim.
Chachamim require "Vav" Mosif. From "Zos Toras ha'Asham" we would learn only Ashamos Vadai, but not Asham Taluy, for it should not be more stringent than the Chatas one would bring had he definitely sinned, which can be bought for a sixth of a Dinar (or even less). The Hekesh equates Asham Taluy to Asham Vadai.
Question: This is like the opinion that expounds "Zos Toras ha'Asham." How does the opposing opinion explain R. Akiva?
Answer: He learns from a Gezeirah Shavah "b'Erkecha-b'Erkecha" from Asham Me'ilah.
Question: This does not teach about Asham Shifchah Charufah, regarding which it does not say "b'Erkecha"!
Answer: He learns that from a Gezeirah Shavah "b'Ayil-b''Ayil" (from Asham Me'ilah).
KORBANOS DUE TO SAFEK
(Mishnah): R. Akiva agrees... (R. Tarfon says, he brings an Asham and stipulates... If it is a doubt... )
Question: What does this mean?
Answer (Rava): It should say 'if my doubt will never be resolved, the Asham is Asham Taluy.'
(Mishnah): (He can do so because) the same Korban brought for definite Me'ilah is brought for a Safek.
Question: When he finds out that he sinned, he should have to bring Asham Vadai! (This is like one who brought Asham Taluy for a Safek Kares. He brings a Chatas if he learns that he truly sinned.)
Answer (Rava): We learn from R. Akiva and R. Tarfon that Asham Vadai does not require Yedi'ah when it is brought. (He is Yotzei, even though he was in doubt at the time.)
(Mishnah): If a woman brought a Chatas ha'Of due to a Safek (birth):
If she found out before Melikah that she is definitely Chayav (to bring a Korban), it is brought for Chatas ha'Of Vadai (Kohanim eat it), for the same Korban brought for Vadai is brought for Safek.
If there was one piece of Chulin meat and one of Hekdesh, and someone is unsure which he ate (perhaps he transgressed Me'ilah), he is exempt;
R. Akiva obligates an Asham Taluy.
If he later ate the other piece, (he definitely transgressed Me'ilah,) he brings an Asham Vadai.
R. Akiva says, if different people ate the two pieces, each of them brings an Asham Taluy;
R. Shimon says, (together) they bring one Asham (Vadai, and stipulate that it is for the one who ate Hekdesh);
R. Yosi says, two people cannot bring one Asham.