1)

(a)Shmuel rules that someone who performs Seritah with an implement - is Chayav.

(b)The Beraisa rules that - Seritah and Gedidah are basically the same, only Seritah is done using the hand, whereas Gedidah requires an implement.

(c)To explain Shmuel in light of the Beraisa - we establish him like Rebbi Yossi in the previous Beraisa (who holds that the two incorporate both with the hand and using an implement).

2)

(a)The Beraisa cited by the Beraisa-expert rules that someone who makes a cut on account of a deceased person, is Chayav 'bein be'Yad bein bi'Keli', and that if he does so as an act of Avodah-Zarah - he is Chayav be'Yad, but Patur bi'Keli.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan objects to this based on the Pasuk in Melachim "Vayisgodedu ke'Mishpatam be'Charavos u'vi'Remachim" - from which we see that it was common to use implements for Avodah-Zarah. Consequently, if anything, the Beraisa ought to have reversed the rulings of Avodah-Zarah.

(c)So he amends the Beraisa to read - 'al Avodah-Zarah be'Yad Patur, bi'Keli Chayav'.

(d)The ramifications of this Halachah are that - whereas someone who cuts himself with his hand is only Chayav by the Avodah-Zarah that is worshipped in that way, if he uses an implement, he is Chayav even where it is not.

3)

(a)To explain our Mishnah ...

1. ... 've'Chayav al ha'Rosh', Rav Sheishes demonstrated - the joints beside the ears that divide between the head and the lower-face.

2. ... 've'Al ha'Zakan Shetayim mi'Ka'an ... ' - he pointed to the five joints of the jaw (which we explained earlier).

(b)The reason behind Rebbi Eliezer's ruling in our Mishnah that one receives only one set of Malkos for shaving the two Pe'os is - because the two Pe'os constitute one La'av.

(c)Based on the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Pe'as" "Pe'as", the Beraisa learns from the words ...

1. ... "Lo Yegalechu" (in the Pasuk in Emor "u'Pe'as Zakanam Lo *Yegalechu*) that - one is Patur for shaving one's beard using tweezers or a plane (as they constitute, not shaving, but destroying).

2. ... "ve'Lo Sashchis" (in the Pasuk in Kedoshim "ve'Lo Sashchis es Pe'as Zekanecha") that - one is Patur for shaving the beard with a pair of scissors, since they do not destroy.

(d)Rebbi Eliezer includes shaving with tweezers or with a plane in the La'av, but not using scissors - because, although he holds of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', he considers tweezers and a plane to be shaving.

4)

(a)The La'av of Kesoves Ka'aka comprises - first writing on one's skin and then cutting into the writing.

(b)In order to be Chayav one must use - a dye that leaves a mark.

(c)Based on the Pasuk in Kedoshim (following the La'av of Kesoves Ka'aka) "Ani Hash-m", Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah qualifies the La'av - by conditioning it to the insertion of a name.

(d)Rav Acha B'rei de'Rava thought that Rebbi Shimon requires the words "Ani Hash-m" to be written, until Rav Ashi told him - that he means the name of an Avodah-Zarah.

(e)He learned that - from the inference "Ani Hash-m", 'Ani Hu ve'Lo Acher'.

5)

(a)Rav Malkiya Amar Rav Ada forbids a person to place ashes on one's wound - because it resembles Kesoves Ka'aka.

(b)According to Rav Chin'na brei de'Rav Ika, the author of 'Sh'fod', 'Shefachos' and 'Gumos' is Rav Malkiyo, whilst the author of 'B'luris', 'Eifer Makleh' (our case) and 'Gevinah' is - Rav Malkiya.

6)

(a)Rav Papa disagrees, based on the Si'man 'Masnita Malk'sa' (which literally means that the Mishnah or the Beraisa is a queen), meaning - that whichever case deals with a Mishnah or Beraisa, is Rav Malkiya, whereas those that are a plain Machlokes Amora'im, is Rav Malkiyo.

(b)This facilitates remembering which opinion is which, lies in the fact - that both 'Masnita' and 'Malkiya' end with an 'a' (which has feminine connotations).

(c)The case that is now affected by Rav Papa's statement is - Shefachos, which is a Mishnah, and which must therefore be authored by Rav Malkiya (and not Rav Malkiyo, as stated by Rav Chin'na brei de'Rav Ika)

(d)Rav Bibi bar Abaye was careful not to transgress the La'av of Kesoves Ka'aka when bloodletting (like Rav Malkiya). According to Rav Ashi however - wherever there is a wound, it is permitted, since the wound indicates his true motives (leaving no room for suspicion).

7)

(a)We already discussed the Mishnah's rulings regarding a Nazir who drinks wine after being warned not to. The Tana rules that a Kohen who renders himself Tamei Meis ...

1. ... all day following one warning - receives one set of Malkos.

2. ... after being warned, and then, when he is warned again, he does so again - receives one set of Malkos for each warning.

(b)He also rules that someone who ...

1. ... spends all day shaving off his Pe'os or wearing Kil'ayim (Sha'atnez) - receives one set of Malkos.

2. ... following a warning, shaves one Pe'ah or wears Kil'ayim, and then, when he is warned a second time, he shaves of the other Pe'ah or transgresses the La'av of Sha'atnez again - receives one set of Malkos for each warning.

8)

(a)Our Mishnah presents a case where someone receives eight Malkos for plowing one furrow. The first Isur is that of plowing with an ox and a donkey. The Tana does not then add Malkiyos by referring to a number of oxen and donkeys - because he is presenting the maximum number of different La'avin that a person will transgress.

(b)When the Tana adds 've'Hein Mukdashin', regarding ...

1. ... the ox is - the La'av of "Lo Sa'avod bi'Vechor Shorecha" (not to work with a B'chor, incorporating all Kodshei Mizbe'ach).

2. ... the donkey it is - 'Heizid bi'Me'ilah' (deriving benefit from Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis).

(c)The fourth, fifth and sixth La'avin are Kil'ayim be'Kerem, Shevi'is and Yom-tov. The last two La'avin on he list - are a Kohen and a Nazir in a graveyard.

9)

(a)The Rabbanan refute the opinion of Rebbi Chanina ben Chachinai, who adds that the sinner is also wearing Kil'ayim on the grounds that - this has nothing to do with plowing.

(b)And Rebbi Chanina ben Chachinai counters their argument by pointing out that - neither do a Kohen and a Nazir in a graveyard.

(c)Rav Bibi Amar Rebbi Yossi qualifies the Halachah in our Mishnah (concerning Kil'ayim) 'Poshet ve'Lovesh, Chayav al Kol Achas ve'Achas' - by confining it to taking off the sleeve and putting it on again.

(d)According to Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ika, he actually has to remove the sleeve and put it on again. Rav Ashi however, maintains that - one transgresses the second La'av even by just waiting (after the warning) the amount of time it would take to remove the sleeve and put it on again, even if he does not actually do so.

10)

(a)Rebbi Yanai said 'ha'Chofeh (or 'ha'Mechapeh') be'Kil'ayim (which means that in the course of plowing, one covers over Kil'ayim) - Lokeh' (because of 'Zore'a').

(b)He said this - 'ba'Chaburah', on a day when the Chachamim all gathered together for a meeting or for some other purpose.

(c)The exact Isur that the sinner transgresses when he does this is sowing ('Zore'a') Kil'ayim.

(d)When Rebbi Yochanan asked whether that is not what our Mishnah means when it says 'ha'Choresh ... u'va'Shevi'is', Rebbi Yanai replied that - if he had not taught them the Halachah, they would probably have connected the Chiyuv to 'Mekayem Kil'ayim' (working in the field and not destroying the Kil'ayim which is there [and not because of 'Zore'a']).

11)

(a)Resh Lakish was not impressed with Rebbi Yanai's praise of Rebbi Yochanan (in that he seems to have concurred with them) - because in his opinion, 'ha'Chofeh be'Kil'ayim' in our Mishnah is indeed Chayav because of 'Mekayem Kil'ayim', like the opinion of Rebbi Akiva (as we will now see).

(b)The Beraisa says 'ha'Menachesh (someone who weeds) ve'ha'Mechapeh be'Kil'ayim, Lokeh'. The basis for 'Mechapeh' is - 'Mekayem Kil'ayim' (like Rebbi Akiva) ...

(c)... who actually concludes 'Af ha'Mekayem'. The Chachamim who argue with him - exempt 'ha'Mechapeh be'Kil'ayim' from Malkos (though they agree that 'Menachesh' is Chayav because of 'Zore'a').

(d)Based on the Pasuk "Behemt'cha Lo Sarbi'a Kil'ayim, Sadcha Lo Sizra Kil'ayim", Rebbi Akiva's source is - the juxtaposition of "Sadcha" to "Kil'ayim" (since the Torah should otherwise have written "Behemt'cha Kil'ayim Lo Sarbi'a ... "), from which he Darshens 'Kil'ayim Sadcho Lo' ('Do not maintain Kil'ayim in your field!').

12)

(a)Ula asked Rav Nachman why the Tana omits someone who sows on Yom-Tov. For his Kashya to be relevant, he must explain 'ha'Chofeh be'Kil'ayim' (in light of the previous Sugya) as - 'Zore'a' (like Rebbi Yanai), and not as 'Mekayem' (like Resh Lakish).

(b)He rejects Rav Nachman's answer that the Tana omitted it because of the principle 'Tana ve'Shiyer' (the Tana learns some things, and omits others) - because the Beraisa specifically mentions the number eight.

(c)Rabah therefore ascribes the omission to the fact that - even though there is Chiluk Melachos on Shabbos (one is Chayav a Chatas for each Melachah that one transgresses in one He'elam), there is no Chiluk Melachos on Yom-Tov (in which case someone who performs a number of Melachos on Yom-Tov will only receive one set of Malkos), and the Tana has already inserted plowing on Yom-Tov.

(d)The source for Rabah's distinction is either because, when the Torah mentions "Hav'arah" to teach us 'Chiluk Melachos', it is referring specifically to Shabbos and not to Yom-Tov; or (based on the assumption that we learn Chiluk Melachos from the Pasuk in Vayikra "me'Achas me'Heinah") - because this Pasuk pertains specifically to Chayvei K'risus (like Shabbos) and not to Chayvei La'avin (like Yom-Tov).

(e)When, following Rabah's explanation, Ula said 'Ada T'hei', he meant - that it was a good S'vara.

13)

(a)The Beraisa prescribes - five sets of Malkos for someone who cooks a Gid ha'Nasheh in milk on Yom-Tov and then eats it.

(b)He is Chayav for eating Gid ha'Nasheh and for cooking unnecessarily on Yom-Tov - for cooking and eating meat and milk together and for lighting a fire (which is an independent Melachah from cooking).

(c)Abaye queries Rabah from this Beraisa - which prescribes two sets of Malkos for one act on Yom-Tov (and which therefore holds 'Yesh Chiluk Melachos be'Yom-Tov').

(d)To answer Abaye's Kashya, we initially establish the Beraisa by the Gid ha'Nasheh of a Neveilah, and switch the fifth Malkos from 'Hav'arah' to 'Neveilah'. We reject this answer however, based on Rebbi Chiya, quoting another Beraisa - who gives the composition of the Beraisa under discussion as three Malkos for cooking and two for eating.

14)

(a)So we change the switch from the La'av of Neveilah to that of the wood of an Asheirah (an idol-tree) - based on the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Yidbak be'Yadcha Me'umah min ha'Cherem".

(b)Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava queries this however, from the Pasuk in Va'eschanan "ve'Lo Savi So'eivah el Beisecha", which goes hand in hand with "ve'Lo Yidbak be'Yadcha", in which case, the Tana ought to have prescribed six Malkos, and not just five.

(c)So we finally establish the fifth set of Malkos, based on the Pasuk there "va'Ashereihem Tisrefun ba'Eish ... Lo Sa'asun Kein la'Hashem Elokecha" - in which case the sinner used Hekdesh wood for the fire.