1)
(a)According to Rav Bibi Amar Resh Lakish, Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan argue specifically by grains of wheat, but by flour, even Rebbi Shimon will agree that the Shi'ur is a ke'Zayis. What does Rebbi Yirmiyah Amar Resh Lakish say?
(b)Whose opinion do we attempt to corroborate by inference, from Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah, who said to the Rabbanan 'Af Chitah Achas ke'Biryasah'? What do we extrapolate from there?
(c)How do we refute the proof for Rav Bibi's opinion from there? What might Rebbi Shimon have been saying to the Rabbanan?
(d)What did the Rabbanan then reply?
1)
(a)According to Rav Bibi Amar Resh Lakish, Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan argue specifically by grains of wheat, but by flour, even Rebbi Shimon will agree that the Shi'ur is a ke'Zayis. According to Rebbi Yirmiyah Amar Resh Lakish - Rebbi Shimon argues by flour, too.
(b)Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah, who said to the Rabbanan 'Af Chitah Achas ke'Biryasah', implying that he agrees with them by flour - appears to corroborate the opinion of Rav Bibi.
(c)We refute this proof however, on the grounds - that Rebbi Shimon himself might well not hold of a Shi'ur at all, only he was asking the Rabbanan whether they would not at least concede that a whole grain is a 'Beryah' (a complete entity), which does not require a Shi'ur ...
(d)... to which they replied in the negative, since they only consider something that has a Neshamah a Beryah (see Tosfos).
2)
(a)How does Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa distinguish between Chayvei Makos and Chayvei Korban regarding the 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai' of Shi'urin?
(b)What do we prove from there?
2)
(a)Rebbi Shimon in a Mishnah maintains - that the 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai' of Shi'urin was only said with regard to bringing a Korban, but not with regard to Malkos ...
(b)... a proof for Rebbi Yirmiyah's interpretation of Rebbi Shimon (inasmuch as the Shi'ur k'Zayis was not said at all regarding Malkos, even with regard to flour).
3)
(a)What does our Mishnah say about a Kohen who eats Bikurim before having read the Parshah, Kodshei Kodshim outside the hangings of the Azarah (in the time of the Mishkan), and even a Yisrael who eats Kodshim Kalim or Ma'aser Sheini outside the walls of Yerushalayim? What do these three cases have in common?
(b)What is the difference between someone who breaks a bone of a Tahor Pesach on the one hand, and who either leaves over part of a Tahor Pesach or who breaks a bone of a Tamei one, on the other?
(c)For which other two reasons, besides the fact that it is a Hasra'as Safek (as we learned earlier according to Resh Lakish) might someone who leaves over part of a Tahor Pesach be Patur from Malkos?
(d)According to Rebbi Yehudah, someone who takes a mother bird together with its young receives Malkos and does not need to send the mother away; whereas according to the Chachamim, he sends away the mother, and is Patur from Malkos. What is the basis of their Machlokes?
3)
(a)Our Mishnah rules that a Kohen who eats Bikurim before having read the Parshah, Kodshei Kodshim outside the hangings of the Azarah (in the time of the Mishkan), and even a Yisrael who eats Kodshim Kalim or Ma'aser Sheini outside the walls of Yerushalayim - are all Chayav Malkos.
(b)Someone who breaks a bone of a Tahor Pesach is Chayav Malkos - whereas someone who either leaves over part of a Tahor Pesach or who breaks a bone of a Tamei one is Patur ...
(c)... either because it is a Hasra'as Safek (as we learned earlier according to Resh Lakish) or - because it is a La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei or a La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh.
(d)According to Rebbi Yehudah, someone who takes a mother bird together with its young receives Malkos and does not need to send the mother away - because he considers it a 'La'av she'Kadmo Asei; whereas according to the Chachamim, he sends away the mother, and is Patur - because in their opinion, it is a La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei (as we learned above).
4)
(a)Rabah bar bar Chanah establishes the author of our Mishnah (that reading the Parshah of Bikurim is crucial to the Mitzvah) as Rebbi Akiva S'timta'ah. What does 'S'timta'ah' mean?
(b)What do the Rabbanan hold?
(c)The Tana who specifically holds that reading is crucial is Rebbi Shimon. Why did Rebbi Yochanan then not establish *him* as the author of our Mishnah?
4)
(a)Rabah bar bar Chanah establishes the author of our Mishnah (that 'K'ri'ah' [reading the Parshah of "Arami Oved Avi"] is crucial to the Mitzvah) as Rebbi Akiva S'timta'ah, which means that - he is the author of many of the S'tam Mishnahs learned by Rebbi.
(b)The Rabbanan hold that - 'Hanachah' (placing the Bikurim beside the Mizbe'ach) is crucial, but not 'K'ri'ah'.
(c)Despite the fact that the Tana who specifically holds that reading is crucial is Rebbi Shimon, Rebbi Yochanan preferred to establish Rebbi Akiva as the author of our Mishnah - to teach us that Rebbi Akiva (the ultimate source of most S'tam Mishnah's and Beraisos) holds like Rebbi Shimon in this point.
5)
(a)In the Pasuk in Re'ei "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha Ma'asar Degancha ... ", how does Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, interpret "u'Terumas Yadecha" (the last item in the Pasuk)?
(b)Why does he decline to interpret it as the prohibition of eating Bikurim outside the walls of Yerushalayim (which the Pasuk is basically talking about)?
(c)Then how does he establish the Pasuk?
(d)The Pasuk ends with "ve'Nidvosecha u'Terumas Yadecha", and Rebbi Shimon interprets "Nidvosecha" as Todah and Shelamim. If, by the same logic as we just applied to Bikurim, we do not require a Pasuk to forbid eating them outside the walls of Yerushalayim, then what is the Pasuk coming to prohibit?
5)
(a)In the Pasuk in Re'ei "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha Ma'asar Degancha ... " (which refers to Ma'aser Sheini), Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, interprets "u'Terumas Yadecha" (the last item in the Pasuk) - as Bikurim.
(b)He declines to interpret it as the prohibition of eating Bikurim outside the walls of Yerushalayim (which the Pasuk is basically talking about) - because we already know that from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Ma'aser.
(c)He therefore establishes the Pasuk with regard to - a Kohen eating Bikurim before the 'K'ri'ah'.
(d)The Pasuk ends with "ve'Nidvosecha u'Serumas Yadecha", and Rebbi Shimon interprets "Nidvosecha" as Todah and Shelamim. By the same logic as we just applied to Bikurim, we do not require a Pasuk to forbid eating them outside the walls of Yerushalayim, so the Pasuk must be coming to prohibit - eating them before the Zerikas ha'Dam (the sprinkling of the blood).
6)
(a)The Pasuk ...
1. ... "u'Bechoros ... " (mentioned immediately after Ma'aser Sheini) is not needed to teach us Chutz le'Chomah (because we already know it from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Ma'aser) or for eating them before the Zerikas ha'Dam ('Kal va'Chomer' from Shelamim). Then what is it coming to teach us?
2. ... "Bekarcha ve'Tzoncha" comes to include Chatas ve'Asham, says Rebbi Shimon. Seeing as, following the same pattern as before, no Pasuk is needed for Chutz le'Chomah, Lifnei Zerikah, or even to forbid a Zar from eating them after Zerikah, what is the Pasuk coming to forbid?
(b)What does Rebbi Shimon finally learn from "Nedarecha", which he says, refers to Olah?
(c)What do Todah and Shelamim, Chatas, Asham and Olah all have in common, besides the fact that they are all included in the La'av of Chutz le'Chomah?
6)
(a)The Pasuk ...
1. ... "u'Bechoros ... " (mentioned immediately after Ma'aser Sheini) is not needed to teach us Chutz le'Chomah (because we already know it from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Ma'aser) or for eating them before the Zerikas ha'Dam ('Kal va'Chomer' from Shelamim). In fact, it is coming to teach us - the prohibition of a Zar eating it even after the Zerikah.
2. ... "Bekarcha ve'Tzoncha" comes to include Chatas ve'Asham, says Rebbi Shimon. Seeing as, following the same pattern as before, no Pasuk is needed for Chutz le'Chomah, Lifnei Zerikah, or even to forbid a Zar from eating them after Zerikah, the Pasuk must be coming to forbid - a Kohen to eat them outside the hangings of the Chatzer.
(b)Rebbi Shimon finally learns from "Nedarecha" - that anyone (even a Kohen) is Chayav if he eats a piece of Olah, even after the Zerikah and even in the Azarah.
(c)Besides the fact that Todah and Shelamim, Chatas, Asham and Olah are all included in the La'av of Chutz le'Chomah, they - all have an Isur Asei.
17b----------------------------------------17b
7)
(a)What did Rava say about mothers and Rebbi Shimon?
(b)Rebbi Shimon learns Bikurim from Ma'aser with a 'Kal va'Chomer' because Bikurim are forbidden to Zarim (which Ma'aser is not). What is the Chumra of ...
1. ... Todah and Shelamim over Ma'aser?
2. ... B'chor over Todah and Shelamim?
3. ... Chatas and Asham over B'chor?
4. ... Olah over Chatas ve'Asham?
(c)Rava asks a Pircha on each of these 'Kal va'Chomers. Ma'aser is more stringent that Bikurim inasmuch as it is Asur to an Onan (which Bikurim are not). What is the stringency of ...
1. ... Ma'aser over Todah and Shelamim?
2. ... Todah and Shelamim over B'chor?
3. ... B'chor over Chatas and Asham?
4. ... Chatas ve'Asham over Olah?
(d)In what way are all the Korbanos more stringent than Olah?
7)
(a)Rava said - that when a woman gives birth to a son, it should be to a son like Rebbi Shimon.
(b)Rebbi Shimon learns Bikurim from Ma'aser with a 'Kal va'Chomer', because Bikurim are forbidden to Zarim (which Ma'aser is not). The Chumra of ...
1. ... Todah and Shelamim over Ma'aser is - the blood and the Emurin being brought on the Mizbe'ach (whereas no part of Ma'aser is).
2. ... B'chor over Todah and Shelamim is - its Kedushah from birth.
3. ... Chatas and Asham over B'chor is - the fact that they are Kodshei Kodshim (whereas B'chor is Kodshim Kalim).
4. ... Olah over Chatas ve'Asham is the fact that - an Olah goes on the Mizbe'ach in its entirety, whereas most of Chatas ve'Asham is eaten.
(c)Rava asks a Pircha on each of these 'Kal va'Chomers. Ma'aser is more stringent that Bikurim inasmuch as it is Asur to an Onan (which Bikurim are not). The stringency of ...
1. ... Ma'aser over Todah and Shelamim lies in the fact that - it requires minted money for its redemption, which the latter do not.
2. ... Todah and Shelamim over B'chor lies in the fact that - unlike B'chor, they require Semichah (leaning the hands) Nesachim (a wine-offering) and Tenufas Chazeh ve'Shok (waving the chest and the right calf).
3. ... B'chor over Chatas and Asham is that - its Kedushah is from birth, whereas the latter need first to be sanctified.
4. ... Chatas ve'Asham over Olah is that - they atone, whilst an Olah doesn't.
(d)Whereas all the Korbanos in fact, are more stringent than Olah - inasmuch as there are two Achilos, Achilas Adam and Achilas Mizbe'ach (and by an Olah there is only Achilas Mizbe'ach).
8)
(a)In this way, all the 'Kal va'Chomers' of Rebbi Shimon fall away. In that case, why did Rava praise Rebbi Shimon?
(b)What, for example, would be the problem, if one were to begin the D'rashah with B'chor, were the Torah to mention it first after Ma'aser?
(c)What is the basic problem with Rebbi Shimon applying the concept of 'Kal va'Chomer' altogether?
(d)Why do we not answer that Rebbi Shimon holds like Rebbi Yitzchak, who holds 'Onshin min ha'Din'?
8)
(a)In this way, all the 'Kal va'Chomers' of Rebbi Shimon fall away. Rava nevertheless praised Rebbi Shimon - because according to his opinion, he changed the order of the items in the Pasuk wisely (so that each one enjoys the maximum Chidush that fits it).
(b)For example, the problem with beginning with B'chor (were the Torah to mention it first after Ma'aser) would be that - since we would not yet know the Din of Lifnei Zerikah by Todah u'Shelamim, we would have to use the word "Bechoros" to teach us B'chor Lifnei Zerikah, and we would therefore not know the prohibition of a Zar eating B'chor even after Zerikah.
(c)The basic problem with Rebbi Shimon applying the concept of 'Kal va'Chomer' altogether is - the principle of 'Ein Mazhirin min ha'Din (which negates Darshening a 'Kal va'Chomer' for Malkos).
(d)We do not answer that Rebbi Shimon holds like Rebbi Yitzchak, who holds 'Onshin min ha'Din' - because even those who hold 'Onshin min ha'Din' (to learn Misah, after we already have an Azharah), concede that 'Ein Mazhirin min ha'Din' (we need a specific Pasuk to teach us the Azharah).
9)
(a)So Rava establishes Rebbi Shimon to mean 'Isura be'Alma' (but not Malkos). What does Rava himself say about a Zar who eats a piece of Olah before the Zerikah outside the walls of Yerushalayim?
(b)Why *five*?
(c)How do we initially resolve the apparent discrepancy in Rava's own words, based on 'Ein Onshin (Mazhirin) min ha'Din'?
(d)How do we query this from our Mishnah (which is talking about Chayvei Malkos)?
9)
(a)So Rava establishes Rebbi Shimon to mean 'Isura be'Alma' (but not Malkos). Rava himself however, says - that a Zar who eats a piece of Olah before the Zerikah outside the walls of Yerushalayim, receives five sets of Malkos ...
(b)... Chutz le'Chomah (Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser), Lifnei Zerikah (Kal va'Chomer from Todah u'Shelamim), Zar (Kal va'Chomer from B'chor), outside the Azarah (Kal va'Chomer from Chatas ve'Asham), and eating Olah (for which even a Kohen is Chayav).
(c)Initially, we resolve the apparent discrepancy in Rava's own words (based on 'Ein Onshin [Mazhirin] min ha'Din') - by modifying 'Lokeh' to mean five Isurin.
(d)We query this from our Mishnah - where we learned that someone who eats Bikurim before the K'ri'ah and Kodshei Kodshim outside the hangings of the Azarah receives Malkos (and our Mishnah is discussing specifically Chayvei Malkos)?