(a)What did Rav Nasan bar Asya do on the second day of Shavu'os that caused Rav Yosef to place him in Cherem?
(b)What query did Abaye put to Rav Yosef?
(c)Rav Yosef replied that Cherem is more stringent than Malkus. How did he prove this?
(d)According to the second Lashon, Rav Yosef gave Rav Nasan bar Asya Malkus. How did he justify this, considering Rav and Shmuel's ruling that someone who violates the second day Yom-Tov is placed in Cherem, rather than receives lashes?
(a)Rav Yosef placed Rav Nasan bar Asya in Cherem - because he went on the second day of Shavu'os, from the Yeshiva to Pumbedisa (which was beyond the Techum Shabbos).
(b)Abaye asked Rav Yosef why he did not give him Malkus.
(c)Rav Yosef proved that Cherem is more stringent than Malkus - from the fact that in Eretz Yisrael (where they were more particular about Kavod Torah), they would give a Torah-student lashes rather than place him in Cherem (Most other Rishonim explain the Gemara differently - see Rabeinu Chananel).
(d)According to the second Lashon, Rav Yosef gave Rav Nasan bar Asya Malkus, despite Rav and Shmuel's ruling, that someone who violated the second day Yom-Tov was to be placed in Cherem, rather than to receive lashes - because he was a Torah-student.
(a)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah ostensibly forbids a species of fruit that is brought from a place where they have not yet finished, to a place where they have. What does 'finished' mean?
(b)And what does Rebbi Yehudah seem to mean when he says 'You can also go and fetch some'?
(c)What is the problem with this?
(a)'A species of fruit that is finished' (with regard to Shemitah) means that there are no more fruits of that species in any of the fields of that region of Eretz Yisrael or Ever ha'Yarden for the wild animals to eat.
(b)When Rebbi Yehudah says 'You can also go and fetch some', he seems to mean that, since the town from which the fruit came is located in a region where there are still some of that species available in the fields, it is permitted even in the town where he is now, even though there are not.
(c)But does Rebbi Yehudah not hold of the principle 'Nosnin Alav ... v'Chumrei ha'Makom she'Halach Lesham' ... ?
(a)The Gemara amends the Tana Kama to read 'O mi'Makom she'Lo Kalu l'Makom she'Lo Kalu, v'Shama she'Kalu bi'Mekomo'. What is now their Machlokes?
(b)How do we then amend the opinions in order to accommodate Rebbi Elazar, who maintains that Rebbi Yehudah is stricter than the Tana Kama, not more lenient?
(c)Abaye re-establishes the Mishnah by someone who brought fruit from a place where they have not finished to a place where they have, and he then takes them back to find that they have still not finished. What is now their Machlokes?
(d)Why does the Gemara reject this explanation too?
(a)After we amend the Mishnah to read 'O mi'Makom she'Lo Kalu l'Makom she'Lo Kalu, v'Shama she'Kalu bi'Mekomo' - the Tana Kama holds that since, when all's said and done, the fruit has now finished in the town from which he came, it is forbidden to deviate from the Minhag of his town. But Rebbi Yehudah maintains that, since, when he left his town, the fruit was permitted, he can say to them 'Seeing as I took it from your town when there was still some left in the fields, to a town where there are still some in the fields, it is permitted.
(b)According to this however, Rebbi Yehudah comes to be lenient, whereas Rebbi Elazar clearly said that he comes to be strict. Consequently, we change the Tana Kama's words to read not 'Chayav Leva'er', but 'Eino Chayav Leva'er' (for the reason that we gave in Rebbi Yehudah a moment ago). And when Rebbi Yehudah says 'Tzei v'Havei Lecha Af Ata'!, he is not making a statement, but issuing a challenge, as if to say 'See if you can find fruit there' (and since you cannot, because it has now finished, the fruit is forbidden).
(c)Abaye re-establishes the Mishnah by someone who brought fruit from a place where they have not finished to a place where they have, and he then takes them back to find that they have still not finished. - The Tana Kama permits the fruit on the grounds that it came from a place where that species had not yet finished and it was still not finished; whereas Rebbi Yehudah holds that, since he now brought them from a place where the species has finished, the fruit is forbidden.
(d)The Gemara rejects this explanation - because 'since when does passing through a place forbid the fruit'? It is either the place where the fruit grew or the place where the person with the fruit is now, which renders it forbidden.
(a)Rav Ashi finally establishes the Machlokes like that of the Mishnah in Shevi'is, regarding three different species that are pickled together in a barrel. Rebbi Eliezer holds that the moment one of the kinds is finished, the entire barrel is forbidden. What do Rebbi Yehoshua and Raban Gamliel say?
(b)Like whom do the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yehudah respectively, hold?
(a)If three different species are picked together in a barrel. Rebbi Eliezer holds that the moment one of the species is finished, the entire barrel is forbidden - Rebbi Yehoshua says that one may continue to eat from the barrel as long as any of the species is still to be found in the fields; whereas, according to Raban Gamliel as each species becomes unavailable in the fields, it becomes forbidden, irrespective of the other kinds in the barrel.
(b)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah (who forbids the barrel only when all the species have finished, but not before) follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua, and Rebbi Yehudah (who says 'You go and find that species in the fields'!), that of Raban Gamliel.
(a)Ravina connects the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Tana Kama to the Machlokes between the Tana Kama in another Beraisa (who permits eating dates in Yehudah, even 'Al Shel Bein ha'Shitzin', and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says 'Ochlin Al Shel Ben ha'Kifin, v'Ein Ochlin Al Shel Ben ha'Shitzin'. What does this mean?
(b)Like whom do the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yehudah respectively, hold?
(a)The Tana Kama of the Beraisa, who permits eating dates in Yehudah, even 'Al Shel Bein ha'Shitzin' - means to say that even if the remaining dates are only to be found at the foot of the date-palms among the thorns where the wild animals cannot get to them, the fruit that remains in the house is nevertheless permitted; whereas Raban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that we disregard the dates among the thorns; according to him, it is only as long as there are dates (even loose ones) still remaining among the palm-leaves (where the wild animals can get to them) that one is permitted to eat the dates in the house.
(b)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah (who says that it is only when the dates are completely finished in the fields that those in the house are forbidden - holds like the Tana Kama of the Beraisa; whereas Rebbi Yehudah (who tells the man 'You go and fetch some dates from the base of the palms!' And since you cannot get to those that are lodged among the thorns, we disregard them') - holds like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel.
(a)What is the significance (regarding Bi'ur in the Shemitah-year) of
1. ... the three lands Yehudah, Ever ha'Yarden and the Galil?
2. ... the three areas into which each of these three regions was divided?
(b)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Behar "v'li'Vehemtecha, v'la'Chayah Asher b'Artzecha Tihye Chol Tevu'asah Le'chol"?
(c)How did Chazal know to divide Eretz Yisrael specifically into the three aforementioned regioncs?
1. Chazal divided Eretz Yisrael into three independent regions with regard to 'Kalah l'Chayah min ha'Sadeh': Yehudah, Ever ha'Yarden and the Galil. The moment any particular species has finished from the fields in one of the areas, fixes the Zman ha'Bi'ur for that area.
2. The three areas into which each of these three was divided - was also due to the fact that the fruit would terminate in the one before the other. Nevertheless, this division had no Halachic significance (see Tosfos DH 'Ad').
(b)We learn from the Pasuk "v'li'Vehemtecha, v'la'Chayah" - that as long as any particular species remains in the fields, one is still permitted to retain that species in the house to feed the animals (and of course, oneself).
(c)Chazal knew to divide Eretz Yisrael specifically into the three aforementioned areas - because they had a tradition that the wild animals of Yehudah, Ever ha'Yarden and the Galil do not feed from each other's areas (this, in turn, we derive from the word "v'li'Vehemtecha v'la'Chayah Asher b'Artzecha").
(a)What does the Mitzvah of Bi'ur Shevi'is constitute?
(b)What additional Derashah (besides that in 6c.) does Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar learn from the extra 'Chaf' in "b'Artzecha" (or from "Asher b'Artzecha")?
(c)What do the Rabanan hold?
(a)The Mitzvah of Bi'ur Shevi'is constitutes placing the fruit in a place where the animals and the wild beasts can trample on it, and declaring it Hefker (see Tosfos DH 'Misba'arin').
(b)Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar learns from the extra 'Chaf' in "b'Artzecha" (or from "Asher b'Artzecha") - that once the Zman ha'Bi'ur arrives, the fruit must be destroyed (i.e. declared Hefker) in Eretz Yisrael, to the extent that, if it was taken outside Eretz Yisrael, it must be returned.
(c)According to the Rabanan, the fruit may be destroyed wherever it is.
(a)Rav Kahana, quoting his Rebbe, Rebbi Avahu, ruled like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Ika quoting his Rebbe, Rebbi Avahu, ruled like the Chachamim. Why did Rav Safra accept the opinion of Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Ika?
(b)How did he find a hint for this in the Pasuk in Hoshei'a "Ami b'Atzo Yish'al, u'Maklo Yagid Lo"?
(c)What has Rav Safra's choice got to do with Rachbah, who quoted his Rebbe, 'Rebbi'. Yehudah in connection with the double-sheltered rows of seats that surrounded the Har ha'Bayis?
(a)Rav Safra accepted the opinion of Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Ika - because he took great care to record exactly what his Rebbe had said - like Rachbah of Pumbedisa.
(b)"Ami b'Atzo Yish'al, u'Maklo Yagid Lo" - is a hint that the Halachah is like the lenient opinion ('Kol ha'Meikal Lo, Yagid Lo').
(c)Rachbah was not certain whether he heard the ruling from Rav Yehudah or from Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'a, who lived in the same generation - so he quoted both opinions. It appears that, since Rachbah was in doubt, he used the word 'Rebbi' (with a Kamatz), instead of Rebbi; some (such as Rabeinu Chananel), added an 'Alef', to make this point clear).
(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Behar (in connection with the Shemitah-produce) "l'Ochlah"?
(b)How does the Gemara attempt to justify Rebbi Ila'i, who chopped down a date-palm for firewood in the Shemitah, even though it contained unripe dates?
(c)We refute this however, because of what Rav Nachman quoting Rabah bar Avuha said. What did he say?
(d)The Gemara attempts to resolve the problem by establishing Rav Nachman like Rebbi Yosi. What does Rebbi Yosi say, and like whom does Rebbi Ila'i hold?
(a)We learn from "l'Ochlah" - 'le'Ochlah, v'Lo l'Hefsed', that it forbidden to spoil Shemitah-produce.
(b)The Gemara tries to justify Rebbi Ila'i by differentiating between fully-ripe fruit (which is forbidden) and fruit that is not yet fully ripe (which is permitted).
(c)Rav Nachman quoting Rabah bar Avuha said that the 'Mascheli' of Orlah (a protective covering of the dates [Rashi in Berachos] which appears on the fruit when it is not yet ripe, and falls off when it becomes ripe) are subject to Orlah, because they protect the fruit. In any event, he refers to the unripe fruit as a 'P'ri', thereby refuting the previous answer.
(d)The Gemara attempts to resolve the problem by establishing Rav Nachman like Rebbi Yosi - who includes 'Semader' (the initial stages of a grape, when the fruit is far from ripe) in the Din of Orlah. Rebbi Ila'i, who cut down the date-palm, holds like the Rabanan, who disagree with Rebbi Yosi. According to them, an unripe fruit is not considered a fruit.
(a)The above answer however, is unacceptable, due to the Mishnah in Shevi'is, which lists the stages at which the various fruits are Chayav Bi'ur. The difficulty is based on a statement by Rav Asi, who commenting on the Mishnah 'ha'Gefanim mi'she'Yigare'u', explains 'Hu Boser, Hu Giru'a, Hu (ke') Pul ha'Lavan'. What does the Gemara go on to prove from this Mishnah?
(b)Why does the Gemara need to cite Rav Asi's statement here?
(c)How do we finally justify Rebbi Ila'i's cutting down his date-palm in the Shemitah-year?
(a)The Gemara goes on to quote the opening words of the Tana 'Kol ha'Ilanos, mi'she'Yotzi'u' (meaning, when the leaves grow) in Nisan. Already then, the fruit is called a P'ri, leaving us with a Kashya on Rebbi Ila'i.
(b)The Gemara quotes Rav Asi's statement, in order to dispense with the Kashya 'perhaps the author of that Mishnah is Rebbi Yosi, and we have already explained that Rebbi Ila'i holds like the Rabanan? However, that cannot be. Why not? Because it is the Rabanan of Rebbi Yosi who consider Boser (a later stage in the grape's development than Semader) the first stage of grape. Consequently, if, as Rav Asi says, explaining the Mishnah which considers Giru'a a fruit (regarding Bi'ur) 'Hu Boser, Hu Giru'a, Hu (ke')Pul ha'Lavan' - then the author of the Mishnah must be, not Rebbi Yosi, but the Rabanan.
(c)The tree that Rebbi Ila'i cut down was a male palm, the Gemara finally answers. Consequently, the dates that grew on it would never ripen, and were therefore not subject to the Dinim of Shemitah.