1)
(a)Our Mishnah rules that if Reuven takes a beam or a P'rutah belonging to Hekdesh, he is not Mo'el. At which point will Me'ilah take place
(b)And if he is not Chayav for building a beam belonging to Hekdesh into one's house, when is he Mo'el?
(c)On what grounds is someone who gives a P'rutah to the bath-attendant Mo'el, even though he has not yet taken his bath?
(d)What does our Mishnah say about a case where ...
1. ... Reuven and Shimon between them eat or derive benefit from a P'rutah's-worth of Hekdesh?
2. ... Reuven eats half the Shi'ur and Shimon benefits from the other half in another way, or vice-versa? What does the Tana say about the time between one and the other?
1)
(a)Our Mishnah rules that if Reuven takes a beam or a P'rutah belonging to Hekdesh he is not Mo'el. Me'ilah will take place - when he gives it to Shimon.
(b)Although he is not Chayav for building a beam belonging to Hekdesh into his house - he is Mo'el when he actually sits underneath it.
(c)Someone who gives a P'rutah to the bath-attendant is Mo'el even though he has not yet taken his bath - because the door is open, and he is welcome to enter and bathe.
(d)Our Mishnah rules that in a case where ...
1. ... Reuven and Shimon between them eat or derive benefit from a P'rutah's-worth of Hekdesh - they are Chayav Me'ilah (as we learned above), and the same will apply to a case where ...
2. ... Reuven eats half the Shi'ur and Shimon benefits from the other half in another way, or vice-versa - even if one takes place in the morning and the other, in the evening.
2)
(a)How does Shmuel establish our Mishnah to explain why it is that Reuven, who is Mo'el when he gives the beam to Shimon, is not Chayav for taking the beam in the first place?
(b)What problem do we have with our Mishnah, which exempts the person who builds the beam into his house from Me'ilah?
(c)How does Rav therefore establish our Mishnah to explain why he is not Mo'el?
2)
(a)To explain why it is that Reuven, who is Mo'el when he gives the beam to Shimon, is not Chayav for taking the beam in the first place, Shmuel establishes our Mishnah - by the Gizbar of Hekdesh, in whose domain the beam lies anyway (so that, by taking it, he does not change it to a different domain).
(b)The problem with our Mishnah, which exempts the person who builds the beam into his house from Me'ilah is - why he is Patur, seeing as he changed the beam by cutting and shaping it, or by turning it into part of the house.
(c)To explain why he is not MO'el, Rav establishes our Mishnah - where he merely placed the uncut beam on top of the skylight, without actually attaching it in any way.
3)
(a)What do we try to prove from the fact that, according to our Mishnah, someone who builds the beam into his house is Mo'el?
(b)This appears to be a proof for Rav's ruling, in connection with someone who prostrates himself before a house. What is the Din regarding someone who worships something that is attached to the ground?
(c)What does Rav nevertheless say in a case of someone who prostrates himself before a house?
(d)How does Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ika refute the proof? Why might one be Chayav Me'ilah even if we hold Talush ve'li'be'Sof Chibro, havi Mechubar?
3)
(a)We try to prove from the fact that, according to our Mishnah, someone who builds a beam into his house is Mo'el, that - Talush ve'li'be'Sof Chibro, havi Talush.
(b)This appears to be a proof for Rav's ruling, in connection with someone who prostrates himself before a house. Someone who worships something that is attached to the ground - is Patur.
(c)Yet in the current case - Rav rules that he is Chayav (because he holds Talush ve'li'be'Sof Chibro, havi Talush).
(d)Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ika refutes this proof for however - because in the case of the beam he might be Chayav Me'ilah, even we hold Talush ve'li'be'Sof Chibro, havi Mechubar, since, when it comes to Me'ilah, the Torah forbids Hana'ah from any object that is discernible (even if it is attached to the ground).
4)
(a)What does the Beraisa say about someone who resides in a house of Hekdesh?
(b)What do we try and prove from there?
(c)How does Resh Lakish establish the Beraisa, to refute the proof?
(d)Then why does the Seifa refer to a case of someone who resides in a cave of Hekdesh, to teach us that he is not Mo'el? Why does he not refer to a case of a house whose construction preceded its Hekdesh?
4)
(a)The Beraisa rules that someone who resides in a house of Hekdesh - is Mo'el ...
(b)... a proof for Rav that Talush ve'li'be'Sof Chibro, havi Talush.
(c)To refute the proof however, Resh Lakish establishes the Beraisa - where the Hekdesh, which preceded the building, remains intact even after the bricks have been built into a house (otherwise, he would always be Patur because Talush ve'li'Besof Chibro, havi Mechubar).
(d)Nevertheless, the Seifa preferred to refer to a case of someone who resides in a cave of Hekdesh, to teach us that he is not Mo'el, rather than a case of a house whose construction preceded its Hekdesh - because it is fixed (a cave is always Patur, since it is always considered Mechubar), unlike a house made of stones, which is sometimes Chayav, as we learned in the Reisha.
Hadran alach 'ha'Neheneh min ha'Hekdesh'
Perek ha'Shali'ach she'Asah
5)
(a)What distinction does our Mishnah draw in a case where, in the process of using Hekdesh, the Shali'ach does what the owner asks him to, but where he deviates from the owner's instructions?
(b)Who is therefore Mo'el in a case where the owner instructs the Shali'ach to serve his guests ...
1. ... meat, and he serves them liver, or vice-versa?
2. ... one piece each, the Shali'ach instructs them to take two pieces, and they each take three?
5)
(a)Our Mishnah rules that in a case where, in the process of using Hekdesh, the Shali'ach does what the owner asks him to - then the owner is Mo'el; but where he deviates from the owner's instructions - then the Shali'ach is Mo'el.
(b)Consequently, in a case where the owner instructs the Shali'ach to serve his guests ...
1. ... meat, and he serves them liver, or vice-versa - the Shali'ach is Mo'el.
2. ... one piece each, the Shali'ach instructs them to take two pieces, and they each take three - each one is Mo'el, the owner on the first piece, the Shali'ach on the second piece and the guests on the third one.
20b----------------------------------------20b
6)
(a)Seeing as liver is also a kind of meat, why is a Shali'ach who serves the guests liver after receiving instructions to serve them meat, Mo'el? What makes them two different kinds?
(b)Rav Chisda establishes this not like Rebbi Akiva. What does Rebbi Akiva say in a Mishnah in Nedarim about someone who makes a Neder not to eat vegetables, with regard to eating pumpkins?
(c)Why is that?
6)
(a)Despite the fact that liver is also a kind of meat, a Shali'ach who serves the guests liver after receiving instructions to serve them meat, is Mo'el, - because if the same Shali'ach had been sent to buy a piece of meat, and found only liver, he would have first consulted with the person who sent him before buying it.
(b)Rav Chisda establishes this not like Rebbi Akiva, who rules in a Mishnah in Nedarim that - someone who makes a Neder not to eat Yerek is forbidden to eat pumpkins (even though under the circumstances that we just described, a Shali'ach would first consult the sender [which he would not do if he found only legumes]) ...
(c)... because Rebbi Akiva considers them the same kind, notwithstanding.
7)
(a)Abaye disagrees with Rav Chisda. According to him, on what grounds would even Rebbi Akiva agree that the Shali'ach is Mo'el, despite the fact that liver is considered a kind of meat even with regard to Nedarim?
(b)Rava agrees with Nachmeni? Who is Nachmeni?
(c)The Tana who argues with Rebbi Akiva is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, cited in a Beraisa. What does the Tana Kama there say about a person who is Noder not to eat meat, eating ...
1. ... the head, the legs, the trachea, the liver or the heart of an animal?
2. ... the meat of fowl?
3. ... the meat of fish and locusts?
7)
(a)Abaye disagrees with Rav Chisda. According to him, even Rebbi Akiva will agree that the Shali'ach is Mo'el (despite the fact that liver is considered a kind of meat even with regard to Nedarim) - since when all's said and done, the Shali'ach should have consulted the owner, but didn't.
(b)Rava agreed with Nachmeni - alias Abaye.
(c)The Tana who argues with Rebbi Akiva is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, cited in a Beraisa. The Tana Kama there forbids a person who is Noder not to eat meat, to eat ...
1. ... the head, the legs, the trachea, the liver or the heart of an animal - as well as ...
2. ... the meat of fowl ...
3. ... but permits him to eat the meat of fish and locusts.
8)
(a)What does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel say in this case?
(b)What does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel say about the innards of an animal and someone who purchases them at the same price as meat?
8)
(a)Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel - permits all of the above except for the heart.
(b)He also precludes the innards from the realm of meat, and what's more, he say, someone who purchases them at the same price as meat - is crazy.
9)
(a)What problem do we have with the Tana Kama's distinction between fowl and fish?
(b)Rav Papa establishes the Beraisa on a day when the Noder let blood. So what if he did? How does that explain why he did not include fish in his Neder?
(c)We object to Rav Papa's answer however, on the basis of a statement issued by Shmuel. What did Shmuel say about someone who eats fowl after letting blood?
(d)And we substantiate this with a Beraisa. What, besides fish and fowl, does the Tana advise one not to eat after letting blood?
(e)So how does Rav Papa (or Abaye) establish the Beraisa? If the Tana is not speaking about a day on which the Noder lets blood, on what sort of day is he speaking?
9)
(a)The problem with the Tana Kama's distinction between fowl and fish is that - just as a Shali'ach will bring fowl if he cannot find meat, so too, will he bring fish (so why, in the case of Noder min ha'Basar, does he permit the latter any more than the former?)
(b)Rav Papa establishes the Beraisa on a day when the Noder let blood - when it is dangerous to eat fish, and we assume that a person's Neder does not cover things that, for whatever reason, he cannot eat on that day.
(c)But we object to Rav Papa's answer on the basis of a statement issued by Shmuel, who said that if someone eats fowl after letting blood - 'his heart will fly away with the bird'.
(d)And we substantiate this with a Beraisa, which advises someone who has let blood - not to eat fish, fowl, or meat that has lain in salt for two consecutive days and one night (since it is no longer able to revive the patient).
(e)Rav Papa (or Abaye) therefore establishes the Beraisa - by someone who has a pain is his eyes, for whom fish is harmful, but fowl is not.
10)
(a)We try to extrapolate from the Seifa of our Mishnah where the owner said one piece of meat, the Shali'ach two and the guests took three), that a Shali'ach who adds to what he has been instructed is still called a Shali'ach. From which point do we learn it?
(b)What would be the alternative?
(c)To counter this proof, how does Rav Sheishes establish the Mishnah? What did the Shali'ach add, when instructing the guests to take two?
(d)What is the Tana then coming to teach us?
10)
(a)We try to extrapolate from the Seifa of our Mishnah where the owner said one piece of meat, the Shali'ach two and the guests took three), that a Shali'ach who adds to what he has been instructed is still called a Shali'ach - from the fact that the owner is Mo'el, in spite of the fact that the Shali'ach added to his instructions.
(b)Otherwise - the Shali'ach would be considered as having retracted, in which case, he would be Mo'el, but not the owner.
(c)To counter this proof, Rav Sheishes establishes the Mishnah - where the Shali'ach specifically informed the guests that one of the two pieces was per the instructions of the owner, whereas the other, was off his own bat ...
(d)... and the Tana is coming to teach us that - a Shali'ach who specifically adds something of his own is not considered as having retracted from his Sh'lichus.