(a)The Beraisa that we learnt on the previous Amud (regarding Orlah and K'ai ha'Kerem) virtually duplicates the Mishnah in Avodah-Zarah, which speaks about the wood of an Asheirah. The Mishnah says there 'Afah Bo es ha'Pas, Asurah b'Hana'ah' (like Rebbi). Will it make any difference if the wood first fell into other wood?
(b)What does Rebbi Eliezer hold there?
(a)'Afah Bo es ha'Pas, Asurah b'Hana'ah' - even if the wood first fell into other wood, because the Beraisa continues 'Nis'arvu ba'Acheros (va'Acheros ba'Acheros' - which Rabeinu Tam, in Tosfos DH 'Nis'arvu' omits from the text), Kulan Asurin b'Hana'ah'.
(b)Rebbi Eliezer says there 'Yolich Hana'ah l'Yam ha'Melach'.
(a)The Gemara suggests that perhaps Rebbi Eliezer is strict there only because of the stringency of Avodah-Zarah, but that in other areas of Halachah he will hold 'Zeh v'Zeh Gorem, Mutar'. On what two grounds is this suggestion rejected?
(b)So we have proved that the author of the Beraisa of Tanur by Orlah and Kil'ei ha'Kerem is Rebbi Eliezer. Why specifically Rebbi Eliezer, and not the Tana Kama (of the Mishnah in Avodah-Zarah), who seems to agree with him in this point?
(a)If we were to say that Rebbi Eliezer is strict there only because of the stringency of Avodah-Zarah, but that, in other areas of Halachah, he will hold 'Zeh v'Zeh Gorem, Mutar' - then who will be the author of the Beraisa 'Chadash Yutatz'? And besides, we have a Beraisa which specifically reads 've'Chen Hayah Rebbi Eliezer Oser b'Chol Isurin she'ba'Torah'.
(b)In fact, we could just as well have established the Beraisa of Tanur by Orlah and Kil'ei ha'Kerem as being the Rabanan of Rebbi Eliezer. The reason that we only mentioned Rebbi Eliezer and not them - is because we do not know who they are by name.
(a)Assuming that Rebbi holds 'Zeh v'Zeh Gorem, Mutar' (and the Beraisa of Tanur, by Orlah and ?K'lai ha'Kerem is Rebbi Eliezer), it is specifically by an oven and a pot that Rebbi disagrees with Rebbi Eliezer; he agrees with him however, that earthenware dishes, cups and jars which were manufactured using wood from an Asheirah are forbidden. Why is that?
(b)In the second Lashon, Rebbi will even agree with Rebbi Eliezer by a pot, and argues with him only by an oven. Why?
(c)Shmuel quoted the Beraisa like this ... 'Afah Bo es ha'Pas, Rebbi Omer ha'Pas Muteres, va'Chachamim Omrim ha'Pas Asurah'. Why did he deliberately switch the opinions?
(a)Even assuming that Rebbi holds Yesh Sh'vach Eitzim b'Pas, but Zeh v'Zeh Gorem is Mutar, he will agree with Rebbi Eliezer however, that earthenware dishes, cups and jars which were manufactured from wood from an Asheirah are forbidden - because they contain Sh'vach Eitzim, and are subsequently used cold, without a second Gorem.
(b)In the second Lashon, Rebbi will even agree with Rebbi Eliezer by a pot - since one subsequently places the contents in the pot before heating it up with wood which is Mutar (and which is the second Gorem), unlike the oven, into which one tends to stick the bread after it has been heated, making it 'Zeh v'Zeh Gorem'.
(c)Shmuel quoted the Beraisa ... 'Afah Bo es ha'Pas, Rebbi Omer ha'Pas Muteres, v'Chachamim Omrim ha'Pas Asurah'. He deliberately switched the opinion, because in this case, he ruled like Rebbi (a minority opinion). So, in order to encourage the other Chachamim to accept his ruling, he quoted Rebbi in the name of the Chachamim, making it the majority opinion.
(a)'Bishlah Al-gabei Gechalim, Divrei ha'Kol ha'Pas Muteres'. Some say that Rebbi only concedes this only by dying embers, but not if the coals are still red-hot. What do others say?
(b)According to this second opinion, how will the Rabanan, who argue with Rebbi (and hold 'Ein Shevach Eitzim b'Pas' at all) establish the Torah's prohibition to use the peels of Orlah and even the wood of Kil'ei ha'Kerem?
(a)Others say that Rebbi concedes 'Bishlah Al-gabei Gechalim, Divrei ha'Kol ha'Pas Muteres' - even by red-hot coals as well, and that he argues only when the coals are actually aflame, and when the bread was baked from the actual flame.
(b)According to the second opinion, the Rabanan concede that peels of Orlah and even the wood of Kil'ei ha'Kerem is prohibited when one actually shapes the wood into an object (i.e. a chair), in which case, one derives benefit from the wood in its initial state (i.e. before it has been destroyed).
(a)Why will even the Rabanan, who permit the bread by the case of Orlah and Kil'ei ha'Kerem, concede that it is forbidden, if it was baked with the wood of Hekdesh?
(b)What does Rava mean when he asks on this 'va'Halo Ma'al ha'Masik'?
(a)The Rabanan, permit the bread by the case of Orlah and Kil'ei ha'Kerem (because 'Ein Sh'vach Eitzim b'Pas', which in turn, is due to the fact that the small amount of Hana'ah from the Isur that enters the bread becomes Batel). They will concede however, that if the bread was baked with wood of Hekdesh, it will be forbidden - because whereas Bitul applies to Orlah and Kil'ei ha'Kerem, Hekdesh does not become Batel.
(b)When Rava asks 'va'Halo Ma'al ha'Masik' - he means to ask why the person who burnt the wood is not Mo'el, since, if he would be, why should the wood not go out to Chulin (and why should the oven or the bread then be Asur?).
(a)Rav Papa answers that we are talking here about Shelamim -wood, and according to Rebbi Yehudah. What is Shelamim-wood?
(b)What does Rebbi Yehudah say, and how does Rav Papa apply this to our case?
(c)Why are Shelamim not subject to Me'ilah?
(d)Since Rav Papa anyway establishes the case according to Rebbi Yehudah, he could just as well have answered that it speaks when he used the Hekdesh-wood on purpose. Why did he not do this?
(a)Shelamim-wood is wood that the owner declared Hekdesh, but on the condition that it is sold, and that with the proceeds, he will purchase a Shelamim.
(b)Rebbi Yehudah says that Hekdesh does not go out to Chulin b'Meizid (i.e. if someone derived benefit from it on purpose). Shelamim, will have the same Din as other Hekdesh b'Meizid (even if one used them b'Shogeg), since they are not subject to Me'ilah.
(c)Shelamim are not subject to Me'ilah - because they are only Kodshim Kalim, and do not therefore constitute Kodshei Hash-m (which is the term that the Torah uses bu Me'ilah).
(d)The reason we do not answer that it speaks when he used the Hekdesh-wood deliberately - is because the Lashon 'Tanur she'Hisiku bi'Kelifei Orlah' implies Shogeg as well as Meizid.
(a)In light of the above, how do we explain the Beraisa 've'Efer Hekdesh Le'olam Asur'? Why does it not go out to Chulin when the person is Mo'el?
(b)What else does the Beraisa cite whose ashes are not permitted?
(c)Why does the Beraisa use the expression 'Le'olam' specifically with regard to the ashes of Hekdesh?
(a)The Beraisa 've'Efer Hekdesh Le'olam Asur' - speaks when the Hekdesh caught fire by itself, and is not subject to Me'ilah.
(b)The Beraisa also cites the wood of Asheirah, whose ashes are not permitted.
(c)The Beraisa uses the expression 'Le'olam' specifically with regard to the ashes of Hekdesh - to indicate that Hekdesh does not become permitted through Bitul, in the way that the wood of Asheirah (like all Avodah-Zarah) does.
(a)Rav Shemayah establishes the Beraisa 'be'Osan she'Te'unin Genizah'. What does this comprise?
(b)What three-point Derashah does the Beraisa make from the Pasuk in Tzav (with regard to the Terumas ha'Deshen) "v'Samo Eitzel ha'Mizbe'ach"?
(a)Rav Shemayah establishes the Beraisa 'be'Osan she'Te'unin Genizah' by the ashes of Terumas ha'Deshen.
(b)The Beraisa Darshens "v'Samo" - b'Nachas (gently); "v'Samo" - Kulo (all of it); "v'Samo" - she'Lo Yefazer (that it should not scatter).
(a)Rebbi Yehudah learns that Chametz must be burnt, from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Nosar. What is the 'Kal va'Chomer'?
(b)What objection do the Rabanan raise to this 'Kal va'Chomer'?
(c)How does Rebbi Yehudah get round the objection, yet still learn Chametz from Nosar?
(d)And how does he refute their counter-argument ...
1. ... from Neveilah (which does not need to be burnt)?
2. ... from Shor ha'Niskal (which is Asur b'Hana'ah and still does not need to be burned)?
(a)If Nosar, Darshens Rebbi Yehudah, which is not subject to Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei, must be burnt, then Chametz , which is, should certainly be burnt.
(b)The Rabanan object however, to that Kal va'Chomer, on the grounds that, someone who cannot find wood, will not destroy his Chametz (nor will he be obligated to do so - because he is an O'nes). At the end of the day, Rebbi Yehudah's Chumra becomes a Kula (at least as far as someone who wants to travel within thirty days of Pesach is concerned - someone who does not, will be obligated to get rid of his Chametz in any way possible after the sixth hour, even according to Rebbi Yehudah).
(c)Rebbi Yehudah gets round the objection, by learning Chametz from Nosar not through a Kal va'Chomer (to which the previous Kashya does apply), but from a Mah Matzinu (to which it does not).
(d)Rebbi Yehudah refutes the Rabanan's counter-argument ...
1. ... from Neveilah (which does not need to be burnt) - by pointing out that Neveilah is not Asur b'Hana'ah, whereas both Chametz and Nosar are.
2. ... from Shor ha'Niskal (which is Asur b'Hana'ah) - by pointing out that Shor ha'Niskal is not Chayav Kares, whereas both Chametz and Nosar are.
(a)How do the Rabanan finally force Rebbi Yehudah to retract from learning a direct 'Mah Matzinu' from Nosar?
(b)Rebbi Yehudah then learns the obligation to burn Chametz, from the fact that Chametz, like Nosar, is subject to 'Bal Tosiru' (which all the above are not). How do the Rabanan prove him wrong from Asham Taluy and Chatas ha'Of that comes in the case of a Safek?
(c)What is the meaning of Abaye's statement 'Sedana b'Sudni Yasiv, mi'Devil Yadei Mishtalim'? In what context does Abaye say it?
(a)The Rabanan finally force Rebbi Yehudah to retract from learning a direct 'Mah Matzinu' from Nosar - from the Chelev of Shor ha'Niskal, which is Asur b'Hana'ah, and carries with it a Chiyuv Kares, yet it does not need to be burnt.
(b)The Rabanan prove Rebbi Yehudah (who learns the obligation to burn Chametz, from the fact that Chametz, like Nosar, is subject to 'Bal Tosiru') wrong, from Asham Taluy and Chatas ha'Of that comes in the case of a Safek, which Rebbi Yehudah himself rules must be buried - even though they are Chayav Kares and Asur b'Hana'h.
(c)'Sedana b'Sudni Yasiv, mi'Devil Yadei Mishtalim' - means that in the end, when the carpenter was found stealing, they put him in the very stocks which he had made to put others in. Similarly, the Rabanan used Rebbi Yehudah's own opinion (even though they did not actually agree with him in this point) to catch him out, and to force him to rescind.