(a)On what grounds does the Mishnah in Eruvin permit using wine on behalf of a Nazir for an Eruv Techumin, and Terumah on behalf of a Yisrael - in spite of the fact that they are forbidden to drink it?
(b)Considering that the Torah writes in Emor "v'Chol Zar Lo Yochal Kodesh"(incorporating Terumah), how does Rebbi Avahu explain the fact that a Yisrael is permitted to derive benefit from Terumah?
(c)And how does Rebbi Avahu explain the fact that a Nazir is permitted to derive benefit from wine, in spite of the Pasuk in Naso "m'Chartzanim v'Ad Zag Lo Yochel"?
(d)Rav Ashi tries to learn it from "Gadel Pera Se'ar Rosho". How does he learn it from there, and why does the Gemara refute his explanation?
(a)The Mishnah in Eruvin permits using wine on behalf of a Nazir for an Eruv Techumin, and Terumah on behalf of a Yisrael - because both a Nazir and the owner of the Terumah are able to release their declaration through a Beis-Din, in which case they will both be able to drink the wine.
(b)Rebbi Avahu explains the fact that a Yisrael is permitted to derive benefit from Terumah (in spite of the Pasuk "v'Chol Zar Lo Yochal Kodesh") - because the Torah also writes "Terumaschem", to permit it b'Hana'ah.
(c)And he explains the fact that a Nazir is permitted to derive benefit from wine, in spite of the Pasuk in Naso "me'Chartzanim v'Ad Zag Lo Yochel" - because the Torah also writes "Nizro", to permit it b'Hana'ah.
(d)Rav Ashi Darshens "Gadel Pera Se'ar Rosho" - his hair is holy (i.e. forbidden), but not the wine. The Gemara refutes this on the grounds that the Pasuk does not write 'but not the wine'.
(a)'Kotzer la'Shachas, u'Ma'achil li'Behemah'. What do these two statements mean?
(b)How does Rebbi Avahu explain the fact that Chadash is Mutar b'Hana'ah, in light of the Pasuk in Emor "v'Lechem v'Kali v'Charmel Lo Sochlu ad Etzem ha'Yom ha'Zeh"?
(c)How does Chizkiyah explain the words "Terumaschem" and "Ketzirchem" (by Terumah and Chadash respectively)?
(a)'Kotzer la'Shachas' - means that, in spite of the prohibition of harvesting the crops before the Omer, it is permitted to cut them as long as they are still grass (i.e. less than a third grown), because that is not called 'harvesting'. 'u'Ma'achil li'Behemah' - means that one is permitted even to harvest the fully-grown crops for ones animals before the Omer.
(b)Rebbi Avahu explains the fact that Chadash is Mutar b'Hana'ah, in spite of the Pasuk "v'Lechem v'Kali v'Charmel Lo Sochlu ad Etzem ha'Yom ha'Zeh" - because there too, the Torah writes "Ketzirchem" to permit Chadash b'Hana'ah.
(c)Acording to Chizkiyah, "Terumaschem" and "Ketzirchem" mean 'your Terumah' and 'your harvest' respectively. It is a manner of speech, and we do not learn anything special from there.
(a)Hunters who caught Sheratzim may sell them to gentiles (in spite of the Pasuk "Lo Ye'achel"), because the Torah also writes "Lachem". In that case, why are they not permitted to trap them initially, in order to sell them to gentiles?
(b)What is Chizkiyah's source for his contention that "Lo Ye'achel" incorporates a prohibition to derive benefit, but not "Lo Yochal" etc.?
(a)Although the Torah writes "Lachem" by Sheratzim, to permit Sheratzim b'Hana'ah, it nevertheless also writes "v'Sheketz Yihyu Lachem", to teach us that they retain their status of Isur, and it is forbidden to set out to trap them initially.
(b)Chizkiyah's source for his contention that "Lo Ye'achel" incorporates a prohibition to derive benefit - is the Pasuk by Sheratzim, which could have written "Lo Sochel", to teach us that they are Asur ba'Achilah, and Mutar b'Hana'ah. Why did it take the trouble to write "Lo Ye'achel" and then "Lachem"? - if not to teach us that "Lo Ye'achel" always incorporates an Isur Hana'ah.
(a)Why does the Gemara not see fit to ask on Rebbi Avahu (like it asks on Chizkiyah) why the Torah ostensibly prohibits deriving benefit from certain foods by writing "Lo Sochlu" etc., and then has to write "Lachem" etc. to permit it?
(a)The Gemara does not ask on Rebbi Avahu why the Torah first prohibits deriving benefit from certain foods by writing "Lo Sochlu" etc., and then needs to write "Lachem" to permit it - because it has to write "Lo Sochlu", to teach us the prohibition of eating them. And having written "Lo Sochlu" (which incorporates an Isur Hana'ah, it then has no option but to write "Lachem"). The Gemara does ask the question on Chizkiyah, since it began with the option of writing "Lo Sochlu" (which would have taught us the Isur Achilah without incorporating an Isur Hana'ah). Why then, asks the Gemara, did it choose to write "Lo Ye'achel", creating the need to add "Lachem"?
(a)Rebbi Yosi Hagelili permits one to derive benefit from Chametz from one of the three times "Lecha" written in the Torah. The Rabanan need one "Lecha" to forbid the Chametz of a gentile who is under your jurisdiction, and one to forbid a gentile who is not (refer to Sugya, 5b). Why do they need the third "Lecha"?
(a)The Rabanan need an extra "Lecha" - to teach us that both yeast and Chametz are included in Bal Yera'ah and Bal Yimatzei. Nor would we have known one from the other, because yeast, on the one hand, is a stronger Chimutz than Chametz (since it makes others Chametz, too). and on the other hand, Chametz is edible, whereas yeast is not.
(a)What does Rebbi Yosi Hagelili learn from the Pasuk in Tzav (with regard to the Chelev of Neveilah) "Ye'aseh l'Chol Melachah"?
(b)Why would we otherwise have thought that it should be Asur b'Hana'ah, even though it is permitted to Hekdesh (i.e. Bedek ha'Bayis)?
(c)What does Rebbi Akiva learn from "Ye'aseh l'Chol Melachah"?
(d)The Gemara suggests that their Machlokes is based on the Machlokes between Rebbi Avahu and Chizkiyah. How would we then explain their opinions?
(a)Rebbi Yosi Hagelili learns from the Pasuk "Ye'aseh l'Chol Melachah" - that Chelev is Mutar b'Hana'ah for a Hedyot (an ordinary person) just like it is permitted for Hash-m (e.g. to smear skins of Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis).
(b)We would otherwise have thought that, since it is Asur to eat, it is also Asur b'Hana'ah - unlike Hekdesh, which is Mutar to eat (Achilas Mizbe'ach), and which is therefore permitted for Bedek ha'Bayis to derive benefit from it.
(c)Rebbi Akiva learns from "Ye'aseh l'Chol Melachah" - that Chelev of Neveilah is not included in the Din of Neveilah, and is Tahor from Tum'as Neveilah. Consequently, it may be used without problems to rub on skins of Kodshim. But it is obvious to him that Chelev is Mutar b'Hana'ah.
(d)The Gemara initially explained that Rebbi Yosi Hagelili holds like Rebbi Avahu - that "Lo Sochlu" incorporates an Isur Hana'ah, in which case, he requires "l'Chol Melachah" to permit Hana'ah; whereas Rebbi Akiva holds like Chizkiyah - that "Lo Sochlu" is restricted to an Isur Achilah, in which case, no Pasuk is required to permit Hana'ah.
(a)The Gemara concludes that, in fact, both Rebbi Yosi Hagelili and Rebbi Akiva agree that "Lo Sochlu" etc. incorporates the prohibition to derive benefit (like Rebbi Avahu). Then why does Rebbi Akiva decline to learn the Heter Hana'ah from "l'Chol Melachah", like Rebbi Yosi Hagelili does?
(b)What does Rebbi Yosi Hagelili hold in this regard?
(c)Rebbi Yosi Hagelili has a Pasuk to permit deriving benefit from Chelev. He has no Pasuk though, to permit Gid ha'Nasheh. It may well be forbidden, according to him. On the other hand, it may be permitted. What would be his source for permitting it?
(d)Rebbi Shimon who forbids deriving benefit from Gid ha'Nasheh, rejects the Kal va'Chomer, on the grounds that Gid ha'Nasheh has a Chumra over Chelev. What is that Chumra, and why might Rebbi Yosi Hagelili refute that rejection?
(a)The Gemara concludes that, in fact, even Rebbi Akiva agrees that "Lo Sochlu" etc. incorporates the prohibition to derive benefit - nevertheless, he does not require a Pasuk to permit Chelev b'Hana'ah, because he holds that, when the Torah permitted Neveilah, Chelev and Gid ha'Nasheh were included in that Heter.
(b)According to Rebbi Yosi Hagelili - when the Torah permitted Neveilah, only the flesh was included in that Heter, but not Chelev and Gid ha'Nasheh, since they do not bear the title 'Neveilah'.
(c)Rebbi Yosi Hagelili may well permit Gid ha'Nasheh b'Hana'ah from a Kal va'Chomer from Chelev: if Chelev, which carries the penalty of Kares, is permitted, how much more so Gid ha'Nasheh, which is only an ordinary La'av.
(d)Rebbi Shimon who forbids Gid ha'Nasheh b'Hana'ah, rejects the Kal va'Chomer, on the grounds that Gid ha'Nasheh has a Chumra over Chelev - inasmuch as even the Gid ha'Nasheh of a Chayah is forbidden; whereas the Chelev of a Chayah is permitted. Rebbi Yosi will counter that by saying that we are talking about a Behemah, not a Chayah, and by a Behemah, the Kal va'Chomer is perfectly valid, since Chelev is definitely more stringent than Gid ha'Nasheh.
(a)In the above Sugya, Rebbi Avuhu and Chizkiyah disagree on the basic principle (whether "Lo Sochal" etc., incorporates an Isur Hana'ah or not. The practical ramifications of their Machlokes boil down to only one case. What is it?
(b)What is the basis of their Machlokes?
(a)The only practical ramifications of the Machlokes between Chizkiyah and Rebbi Avahu is Chulin that were Shechted in the Azarah, which are Asur b'Hana'ah mid'Oraisa according to Chizkiyah, but only mid'Rabanan, according to Rebbi Avahu.
(b)According to Chizkiyah, we already know the Isur Hana'ah by Chametz and Shor ha'Niskal from the Lashon of "Lo Ye'achel". Consequently, he learns from "la'Kelev Tashlichun Oso" that one may not derive benefit from Chulin that were Shechted in the Azarah. Whereas Rebbi Avahu learns the Isur Hana'ah by Chametz and Shor ha'Niskal from "la'Kelev Tashlichun Oso". Consequently, he has no Pasuk to forbid Chulin that were Shechted in the Azarah, b'Hana'ah - so the Isur Hana'ah that pertains to them can only be mid'Rabanan. Note: this entire explanation is confined to the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. See Sugya 21b. and 22a.
(a)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi was looking for the source of the statement that all Isurin in the Torah are Asur b'Hana'ah, just like they are Asur to eat. What does 'all Isurin in the Torah' incorporate?
(b)Why can he not learn it from "Lo Ye'achel"?
(c)Why can he not learn it from Neveilah (like Rebbi Meir on Daf 21b)?
(d)So why does he not learn it from "la'Kelev Tashlichun Oso" (of Tereifah)?
(a)'All Isurin in the Torah' incorporates Chametz on Pesach and an ox that is due to be stoned.
(b)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi does not learn the Isur Hana'ah by all Isurin from "Lo Ye'achel" - because, according to him, "Lo Ye'achel" implies an Isur Achilah, but not an Isur Hana'ah.
(c)Neither does he learn it from "Lo Sochlu Kol Neveilah" (like Rebbi Meir) - because he holds like Rebbi Yehudah.
(d)Nor does he learn it from "la'Kelev Tashlichun Oso" (like Rebbi Yehudah) - because he uses it to infer that Chulin that were Shechted in the Azarah are forbidden (which in his opinion, are d'Oraisa).
(a)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi eventually learns Chametz and Shor ha'Niskal from the Pasuk in Tzav "Kol Chatas Asher Yuva mi'Damah ... ba'Esh Tisaref". What is the simple interpretation of the Pasuk?
(b)We actually know this Halachah already from "v'Hineh Soraf" - in Shemini. In which context is that written?
(c)So what does Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi do with the Pasuk "ba'Esh Tisaref"?
(d)But surely "ba'Esh Tisaref" is referring to the prohibition of eating Kodshim, and not to that of deriving benefit from other Isurim?
(a)The simple explanation of "Kol Chatas Asher Yuva mi'Damah ... ba'Esh Tisaref" - is that if the blood of a regular Chatas (which is normally sprinkled 'outside' in the Azarah, is brought inside (into the Heichal), must be burnt.
(b)"v'Hineh Soraf" refers to the Chatas of Nachshon (the first of the Princes to bring the inaugural sacrifices on Rosh Chodesh Nisan, after the Mishkan was completed. Moshe found that it had been burnt, and he asked Elazar and Isamar why that was so, seeing as the blood had not been brought into the Heichal, implying that, if it had, he would have had no problem with its being burned.
(c)So Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi learns from "ba'Esh Tisaref" (which is not now needed for itself) - to teach us that all Isurin in the Torah are Asur b'Hana'ah.
(d)Even though "ba'Esh Tisaref" is referring to the prohibition of eating Kodshim - we apply the principle of 'Im Eino Inyan' ... A word or a phrase in the Torah that is not needed in the context where it appears, is used in another context where it is needed.
(a)What does Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi learn from "ba'Kodesh ba'Esh Tisaref".
(a)From "ba'Kodesh ba'Esh Tisaref" - Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi learns that only Kodesh must be burned, but not all other Isurin in the Torah.