Question: The Gemara in Chulin specifically states that Gid ha'Nasheh (is different because it) is a Beryah, and is therefore not Bateil, despite the fact that it does not have a Neshamah?

Answer: What the Gemara there means is that it is considered a Beryah because it comes from a creature that has a Neshamah.

Refutation: This is not correct however, seeing as Neveilah too, comes from a creature that has a Neshamah, yet it is not a Beryah?

New Explanation: We must therefore say that whatever loses its name when it is cut-up is a Beryah. This eliminates the Kashya from Neveilah, which does not lose its name even after it has been cut up, since sometimes people call it 'Neveilah' even after that. That is why it is not considered a Beryah; whereas Gid ha'Nasheh loses its title once it is cut up (and is therefore called a Beryah) as long as it is still whole).

Question: Why do the Rabbanan then say here 'Biryas Neshamah Chashiva' (seeing as that is not their real reason, as we just explained)?

Answer: The Rabbanan are querying R. Shimon according to his reasoning. And what they are saying is 'According to us, even if it does possess a Neshamah it is not considered a Beryah. But you, who holds that it is, won't you agree with us that since a grain of wheat does not have a Neshamah, it is not a Beryah?

Clarification: Because if he were to Darshen the Pasuk in the order that it is written, he would not have been able to Darshen it the way he does now, as Rashi explains.

Question: But still, on what basis does Rava praise R. Shimon in this point? On the contrary, we need to know what prompts him to invert the Pasuk and to learn it this way?

Answer: R. Shimon is quite right to Darshen the way he does; a. B'chor cannot refer to before the Zerikah (even though it is written before the Todah). If it did, the Torah would not have needed to mention it, seeing as we could have learned it from the Todah, which is written only at the end (so it appears to Mashi'ach, just as Tosfos writes); b. Todah in any case, must be speaking before Zerikah, since there is no other Isur that pertains to it (it cannot be speaking after Zerikah, since Zarim are permitted to eat it).

Conclusion: Consequently, we cannot establish B'chor before Zerikah (even though it is written before Todah), since, as we explained, we learn that from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Todah.

Proof: This explanation is logical, inasmuch as we have to establish the Todah before Zerikah, even though the Torah inserts it in the Pasuk of Olah, nevertheless there is no other way of explaining it, as we explained. That being the case, B'chor must be speaking after Zerikah.

Clarification #1: There is an Isur on all of the cases that he mentions, but no Malkos.

Clarification #2: Rashi explains that when R. Shimon adds a warning by each case with regard to a new Isur, he means an Isur but not Malkos. The basic Pasuk regarding Malkos in each case pertains to Chutz le'Chomah, and R. Shimon's Kal-va'Chomer reveals a new Isur by each of the cases: by Bikurim, to eat them before reading the Parshah; by Todah, before Zerikas ha'Dam ... .

Question: What prompts R. Shimon to present a new Isur in each case, seeing as the Pasuk is needed for Malkos outside the wall. How can he say, for example that because we can learn the Isur of Chutz le'Chomah by Bikurim from a Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser, the Pasuk must come to teach us the prohibition of eating them before having read the Parshah? Surely we need the Pasuk to teach us that Chutz le'Chomah is subject to Malkos? And so it is with all the cases!

Answer: R. Shimon understands that the entire Pasuk comes to teach us a dual Limud - one, a new Isur, and the other, Malkos for Chutz le'Chomah, and whathe is saying is if it is to teach us by Bikurim the Isur of Chutz le'Chomah, we know that via a Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser

Answer (cont.): It must therefore be coming to teach us the Isur before he has read the Parshah and to teach us Malkos for Chutz le'Chomah.

Answer (cont.): And when he says that the Chidush by Todah and Shelamim is that someone who eats them before Zerikah receives Malkos, he really means that there is an Isur, but not Malkos.

Gemara's Question: 'But didn't Rava say that according to R. Shimon, a Zar who eats from an Olah before Zerikah ... receives five Malkos', one of them, because of Chutz le'Chomah, which we learn from a Kal-va'Chomer from Ma'aser; and one because of Lifnei Zerikah ... from which we can extrapolate that R. Shimon is referring to Malkos, and not just to La'avin?

Gemara's Answer: 'Five' means five La'avin and not Malkos. In fact, the only case of Malkos is that of 'Ochel Chutz le'Chomah'.

Gemara's Question: 'But did our Mishnah not list those that receive Malkos? Rashi explains that this includes Bikurim before the Ker'i'ah and Kodshei Kodshim outside the hangings.

Question: Why does Rashi mention Kodshei Kodshim, seeing as the Gemara does not answer that question, as Rashi himself explains in the Maskana?

Alternative Explanation: It therefore seems that the Gemara only asks from Bikurim. It does not ask from Kodshei Kodshim, because they have their own Azharah "u'Basar ba'Sadeh T'reifah" as Rashi will explain shortly.

Alternative Explanation (cont.): Neither does the Gemara ask from Kodshim Kalim, since the basic Malkos there is from the Pasuk as it stands (not because it is superfluous) - fecausek the Torah writes "and you shall bring there ... ". It ought then to continue, 'Do not eat them', with reference to the preceding Pasuk, where they are all listed. Therefore 'Ochel Chutz le'Chomah' does not require a Pasuk, since they are all written explicitly in connection with it, which explains why it is not a 'La'av she'bi'Kelalus'.

Gemara's Answer: Why does the Torah need to mention each case again? Clearly, it is coming to apply a La'av to each case - as if it had repeated the La'av of Chutz le'Chomah by each one.

Clarification: Since however, we do not need a Pasuk for the La'av of Chutz le'Chomah, it must therefore be coming for something that it is needed for 'Im Eino Inyan' - Bikurim before the Parshah has been read, and each one as explained by R. Shimon.

Question: Why will it not suffice to establish each case of Kodshim mentioned in the Pasuk with regard to Lifnei Zerikah, with the exception of Bikurim. Granted, we already know that from a 'Kal-va'Chomer from Todah and Shelamim, but that will not carry with it Malkos, due to the principle 'Ein Mazhirin min ha'Din. In any event, Todah and Shelamim must come for that, seeing as the Isur of Bikurim does apply to them.

Answer: Rashi therefore explains that this is indeed the case! Because in fact, the reason that the Torah specifies all the cases is really with regard to someone who eats them before Zerikah. And when R. Shimon mentions 'Chutz li'Kela'im' in connection with Chatas ve'Asham, that is due to the Pasuk "u'Basar ba'Sadeh T'reifah Lo Socheilu" (which the Sugya will cite shortly). Consequently, when Rava says 'Lokeh Chamishah', he really means Isurim (but not Malkos).

Clarification #1: We need to repeat here what we said above, that when the Gemara asks that according to R. Shimon, the Torah writes B'chor for the La'av of 'le'Achar Zerikah, we ought to counter that surely we need the Pasuk to teach us (Malkos by) Lifnei Zerikah, due to the principle of 'Ein Onshin min ha'Din'?

Clarification #2: We must therefore say that R. Shimon understands that the La'av of B'chor as well as all the other La'avin come to teach us two things: a. An independent Isur; b. Malkos before Zerikah. This is why R. Shimon says that we do not require a Pasuk for the Isur of B'chor before Zerikah, since we already know that from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from Todah), but for the Isur of after Zerikah, and the same applies to Chatas and Olah.

Question #1: The above explanation is extremely difficult however. Firstly, on what basis does R. Shimon learn that the La'av that is mentioned by each case comes for both a La'av and Malkos? Perhaps the La'av by Bikurim comes exclusively for Malkos before the K'ri'ah, but not for a new Isur that has not yet been mentioned?

Question #2: Secondly, why does he say by Todah and all the other cases 'If it comes for Chutz la'Chomah, we know that from a Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser'? Surely, he should rather have said that it is specifically written by each case, by virtue of the fact that it could have written "Lo Suchal le'Ochlem", as the Gemara says here (for which reason it did not need to insert all the cases specifically - yet it did!)?

Question #3: Thirdly, the Lashon of R. Shimon 'Ela le'Ochel mi'Bechor Achar Zerikah, she'Lokeh' is difficult, seeing as it is really only a La'av without Malkos?

Question #4: And finally, seeing as it only comes to learn an Isur (and not Malkos), why do we need a Pasuk for this, seeing as the Asei tat is written by each one is considered an Isur, as Rashi explained earlier in the words of R. Shimon?

Answer: We can answer the last Kashya by explaining that, when all's said and done, the Isur of a La'av we only know from here (So it appears to Mashi'ach). The other Kashyos however, remain intact!

New Explanation: When the Gemara says 'Isura be'Alma', it is referring to the Isur of Chutz le'Chomah, which we learn with a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Ma'aser. As we have already learned, we cannot learn Malkos from there, due to the principle 'Ein Mazhirin min ha'Din'. Nevertheless, since we already know of the Isur, it is preferable to establish the La'av by something new (which up until now, we do not know is forbidden), such as Bikurim before the Keri'ah, and each case mentioned by R. Shimon for the La'av which he ascribes to it.

Proof: Like we say in Pesachim 'Wherever it is possible to Darshen something new, we do so, rather than simply add an additional La'av'.

Implied Question: Nor can it be compared to the Gemara there, which suggests that the Pasuk (cited there) comes to add an independent La'av.

Answer: Because even though it is better to establish a Pasuk in connection with the Isur on hand than to ascribe to other Isurim, in our case, we are indeed establishing it with regard to each Isur mentioned (to give a new Malkos), and not with regard to other Isurim that are not mentioned).

Proof: According to this explanation, the Beraisa (of R. Shimon) is justified in saying ' ... explain it with regard to to someone who eats Bikurim before the Keri'ah, who receives Malkos'. And so it is with regard to all the other cases mentioned there.

Gemara's Question: Did Rava not say that a Zar who ate an Olah before Zerikah receives five Malkos? And according to our current explanation, Malkos only pertains to the new La'av, which in the case of Olah is a Kohen who eats from it even after Zerikah

Gemara's Answer: Rava meant five Isurim, not five Malkiyos.

Gemara's Question: But does our Mishnah not begin with the words 'Eilu Hein ha'Lokin, and goes on to include in its list "Kodshim Kalim and Ma'aser Sheini Chutz le'Chomah, from which we see that Todah and Shelamim Chutz le'Chomah are subject to Malkos, a Kashya on what we just said -that the new La'av for which they receive Malkos is Lifnei Zerikah (exclusively)?

Gemara's Answer: There is also a superfluous Pasuk with which we need to contend - for the Torah has already written "ve'Heivesem Shamah ..."; so why does it need to repeat all the cases again? It must be in order to specify a La'av (over and above the Asei) by each one.

Clarification: In other words, the Torah ought to have written "Lo Suchal Le'ochlam", and the Azharah we find by establishing the Isur of Chutz le'Chomah by each one via a Kal-va'Chomer from Ma'aser - as we explained until now - and the main La'av in each case, with regard to Malkos by the new La'av as specified by each one. Only now that the Torah repeats each case, it comes to add Malkos by Chutz le'Chomah of each and every case that it repeats.

Conclusion: It therefore transpires that there are two Malkiyos by each case - the Malkos of Chutz le'Chomah that we learn from the extra Pasuk, and the Malkos by the new La'av that the first Pasuk comes to teach us, as we explained. But what R. Shimon learned by B'chor from Todah and Chatas, and by Olah from Todah, Chatas and B'chor is with regard to an Isur, but not to Malkos. In short, the extra Pasuk focuses exclusively on Chutz le'Chomah (by all the cases), whose Isur we already know from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Ma'aser` and it only serves to add Malkos to the existing La'av. Consequently, when Rava says 'Lokeh Chamesh', he really means five Isurim (and not five Malkos [This is how R. Shimshon bar Shimshon explained it]).

Question: On what grounds does the Pasuk repeat 'Ma'aser' in the Pasuk of "Lo Suchal Lelechol bi'Shhe'arecha"?

Answer #1: It had to write Ma'aser specifically, and the Kashya 'Let it write "Lo Suchal le'Ochlam" refers to the rest. This is because, had the Torah written "Lo Suchal le'Ochlam" without writing Ma'aser explicitly, we would not have been able to Darshen the new Din, since there would have been nothing superfluous for us to say 'What does it come to teach us, since we can learn it from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Ma'aser?', seeing as the wording "Lo Sochlum" would not be longer than it would have been had the Torah written Ma'aser alone (see Maharam [see also Tosfos Shantz DH 've'Im Tomar Ma'aser Gufeih ... ']).

Question: In that case, asks Mashi'ach, how can we learn all the others from Todah regarding before Zerikah and regarding after Zerikah from Bechor, seeing as there is no superfluous wording, since we could learn them all from "Lo Suchal le'Ochlam" (see Maharam)?

New Explanation: We will therefore have to say that since all the cases are specified earlier in the Pasuk "va'Haveisem Shamah", when the Torah then writes "Lo Suchal le'Ochlam" it is as if they were all specified in that La'av, and we can learn one from the other with a 'Kal va'Chomer' as if it was written explicitly.

Answer #2: In any event, the Kashya that we posed earlier (Why the Torah sees fit to repeat Ma'aser) is not really a Kashya at all, since we can apply the principle (cited in Bava Kama) that the Torah sometimes repeats a Parshah on account of the Chidush that appears there.

Answer #3: Furthermore, had the Torah's omission of Ma'aser from the second Pasuk would have led us to believe that there is no La'av by Ma'aser (only the Asei of "va'Haveisem Shamah"), since the Pasuk of "Lo Suchal ... " does not pertain to the main Pasuk regarding it.

Alternative Explanation: The Ri explains that the Gemara's conclusion 'to specify a La'av by each case' means that the extra words come to teach us that each and every case that we learn from a 'Kal va'Chomer' is subject to Malkos.

Question: In that case, when the Gemara asks shortly, why, according to Rava, he does not also 'receive Malkos' on account of R. Eliezer ("Lo Yochal ki Kodesh Heim")?, why does it not answer 'because it is "La'av she'bi'Kelalus" ', which is not subject to Malkos, whereas Rava is speaking specifically about cases which are?

Answer: We might indeed have given this answer, only the Gemara gives even a better answer, in that 'the La'av in question does not apply to Rava at all'!

Conclusion: According to the Ri's explanation, when Rava said that he receives five Malkos, he meant specifically five Malkos (and not just La'avin).

Question: According to Tosfos explanation that when the Gemara asks from our Mishnah ('Eilu Hein ha'Lokin') on Rava, it is also asking from 'Kodshim Kalim Chutz le'Chomah', why did the Gemara not answer that the source of Malkos is the Pasuk "u'Basar ba'Sadeh Tereifah lo Socheilu" (from which we are about to learn Malkos for eating any animal that leaves its borders?

Answer: The Ri answers that the Gemara knew that the Mishnah's source for the Chiyuv Malkos for Chutz le'Chomah is not from that Pasuk, because if it was, the Tana ought to have mentioned Kodshim Kalim she'Yatz'u Chutz li'Kela'im and Kodshim Kalim she'Yatz'u le'Chomah, which would imply that Kodshim Kalim are forbidden once they leave the walls of Yerushalayim, and that even if one subsequently ate them inside, he would be subject to Malkos (as we learned in Chulin).

Answer (cont.): Whereas now that the Tana said simply Chutz le'Chomah, it implies that the person receives Malkos for eating it Chutz le'Chomah - which we learn from the Pasuk "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha".

Question #1: In the Beraisa, R. Shimon establishes the Pasuk "Bekarcha ve'Tzoncha" by Chatas ve'Asham Chutz li'Kela'im; Why do we not already know that from the Pasuk "u'Basar ba'Sadeh Tereifah lo Socheilu"?

Question #2: And similarly, at the beginning of Beheimah ha'Maksheh (ibid.), where it says that, 'because we find that if Ma'aser left its borders and returned, it is permitted, since the Torah writes "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha ... ", implying that the prohibition is confined to "bi'She'arecha" (outside Yerushalayim), but not merely because they left their borders (and returned). But Chatas and Asham are also written in the same Pasuk, yet they are forbidden, even though they re-entered their borders?

Answer: The Riva explains that regarding to Chatas and Asham the Pasuk is speaking about eating them specifically within the curtains (where they never left the Azarah in the first place [see Maharsha]); whereas the Pasuk by Ma'aser and Bikurim is speaking there where they entered and left again, seeing as we will learn later in the Perek that, until they have entered the walls of Yerushalayim, they are not subject to a La'av. Consequently, the Pasuk implies that the Isur pertains specifically to where one eats them outside Yerushalayim, but not to where one eats them after they have returned, where they are definitely permitted (see Maharsha).