1)

(a)We learned in the Beraisa that, according to Rebbi Shimon, Kodshei Akum Lo Nehenin ve'Lo Mo'alin - because the Isur Hana'ah is only mi'de'Rabbanan. If it were d'Oraysa, whoever transgressed would inevitably be subject to Me'ilah, too.

(b)We learn from ...

1. ... the words "B'nei Yisrael" (in the Pasuk in Korach [in connection with Terumah] "ve'Lo Yechalelu es Kodshei B'nei Yisrael asher Yarimu la'Hashem") that - the T'rumos and Ma'asros of a Nochri are not effective.

2. ... the Gezeirah-Shavah "Chet" (in connection with Me'ilah) "Chet" from Terumah" that - his Kodshim are not subject to Me'ilah either.

(c)Also with reference to the Beraisa, we learn from the Pasuk in Emor "Veyinazru mi'Kodshei B'nei Yisrael ve'Lo Yechalelu" that Kodshei Akum are not subject to Tum'ah. And we then learn from the Gezeirah-Shavah ...

1. ... "Chilul" ("ve'Ochlav Avono Yisa, ki es Kodesh Hash-m Chilel" [in connecton with Nosar]) "Chilul" from Tum'ah that - they are not subject to Nosar, either, and from ...

2. ... "Avon" ("ve'ha'Nefesh ha'Ocheles mimenu Avono Yisa" [in connection with Pigul]) "Avon" from Nosar that - they are not subject to the Dinim of Pigul, either.

2)

(a)From the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Daber el B'nei Yisrael leimor Ish ki Yafli Neder be'Erk'cha" (in connection with Temurah) we learn that - a Nochri cannot be Makdish a Temurah .

(b)Alternatively, we learn it from the Pasuk in Korach (in connection with Ma'asar Dagan) "ki es Ma'asar B'nei Yisrael" - "B'nei Yisrael", 've'Lo Akum' - because the Torah compares Ma'aser Beheimah to Ma'aser Dagan ("Aser Te'aser", as we learned in Bechoros), and Temurah to Ma'aser Beheimah (as we will learn later in the Perek).

3)

(a)Finally, Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk in Sh'lach-l'cha (in connection with Nesachim) ...

1. ... "Kol ha'Ezrach ... " that- a Nochri cannot bring independent Nesachim.

2. ... "Kachah" that - his Korban nevertheless requires them.

(b)Consequently, the Nochri is obligated to bring money (with which the Kohanim then purchase Nesachim on his behalf).

(c)According to the text that reads 've'Ein Meivi aleihen Nesachim, Aval Korbano Ta'un Nesachim' - the money for the Nochri's Nesachim come out of public funds, and not out of his pocket.

(d)Rebbi Yossi learns from the word "la'Hashem" in the Pasuk "Ish Ish mi'Beis Yisrael ... asher Yakrivu la'Hashem le'Olah" that - Kodshei Nochrim are Kadosh no less than those of a Yisrael (as we explained in the Beraisa).

4)

(a)We learned above that Kodshei Nochrim are not subject to Me'ilah, "Chet" "Chet" from Terumah. We preclude Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis of Nochrim from the exemption - inasmuch as both Kodshei Mizbe'ach (to which the Pasuk is referring), and Terumah constitute Kedushas ha'Guf, whereas Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, constitute Kedushas Damim.

(b)The problem we have with ...

1. ... Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, who rules that 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh, Ein Lokin alav' is - our Mishnah, which prescribes Malkos for Meimir, even though it does not involve an act.

2. ... establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah (who holds ... Lokin alav) is that - above, we established the Reisha (with regard to 'ha'Kol Mamirin, va'Afilu Yoresh') not like Rebbi Yehudah.

(c)And we answer by establishing the Mishnah according to a third Tana - who holds like Rebbi Yehudah with regard to La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh, but not like him with regard to Yoresh Meimir.

5)

(a)Rav Idi bar Avin, citing ... Rebbi Yehudah in the name of Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili ruled that someone who transgresses a La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh - is not subject to Malkos, with the exception of ...

(b)... Nishba (someone who swears falsely), Meimar and Mekalel es Chavero be'Sheim (using the Name of Hash-m). In the name of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, they added - somebody who separates Terumah before Bikurim (see Tosfos DH 'Af ha'Makdim').

(c)Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Meir (or Rebbi Shimon) learns Nishba from the Pasuk "Ki Lo Yenakeh Hash-m es asher Yiso es Sh'mo la'Shav" - which implies that Beis-Din shel Ma'alah Ein Menakin oso, Aval Beis-Din shel Matah Menakin oso.

(d)Rav Papa asked Abaye why the Pasuk cannot be coming to teach us that the sinner cannot be cleansed from his sin at all. Abaye replied that - if so, the Torah ought to have omitted the word "Hash-m".

6)

(a)The Torah specifically refers to Shevu'as Shav - which constitutes a Shevu'ah changing something that everybody knows to be a fact (that a stone pillar is made of gold).

(b)Rebbi Yochanan cites the Torah's repetition of "la'Shav" (Im Eino Inyan ... ), to incorporate Shevu'as Sheker (which we will define shortly) in the Din of Malkos.

7)

(a)Rebbi Avahu tries to define Shevu'as Sheker. We refute his suggestion that the case of Shevu'as Sheker is ...

1. ... 'Shevu'ah she'Lo Ochal', ve'Achal - since that is a La'av she'Yesh bo Ma'aseh.

2. ... 'Shevu'ah she'Ochal Kikar Zeh ha'Yom', ve'Avar ha'Yom, ve'Lo Achal - since both Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish agree that - such a case is not subject to Malkos, according to ...

(b)... Rebbi Yochanan, because 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh Ein Lokin alav', and according to Resh Lakish, because it is - a case of Hasra'as Safek (which is not considered Hasra'ah [seeing as at any time during the day that he is warned, he can always claim that there is still time, and then claim that he forgot the warning]).

(c)So Rebbi Avahu establishes the Pasuk (with regard to Malkos) by 'Achalti' ve'Lo Achal. Bearing in mind that both 'Achalti', ve'Lo Achal and 'Ochal', ve'Lo Achal do not entail an act, Rava explains that he is Chayav Malkos in the former case more than in the latter one - because just as Shevu'as Shav refers to the past, so too does Shevu'as Sheker (which, by referring to it as 'Shav', the Torah compares to Shav).

(d)If not for Rebbi Avahu, we might have thought that he does not receive Malkos for 'Achalti', ve'Lo Achal - because the Pasuk "Lehara O Leheitiv" (the source of Shevu'as Bituy [See following question]) implies the future and not the past.

8)

(a)A Shevu'as Bituy is - a Shevu'ah that a person utters of his own volition, not at the instigation of the Beis-Din.

(b)The Mishnah, discussing a Shevu'as Bituy, rules that someone who eats a loaf after declaring three times that he will not eat it - receives only one set of Malkos ...

(c)... based on the principle - Ein Shevu'ah Chal al Shevu'ah).

(d)For transgressing be'Meizid, he is Chayav Malkos; be'Shogeg - a Korban Oleh ve'Yored.

(e)Rebbi Yirmiyah tried to extrapolate from the Lashon of the Tana, who introduces his dual ruling with 'Zehu Shevu'as Bituy ... ' - that 'Achalti', ve'Lo Achal is Patur from Malkos (a Kashya on Rebbi Avahu).

9)

(a)Rebbi Avahu answered that 'Zu Hi' coes to preclude, not 'Achalti', ve'Lo Achal (be'Meizid) from Malkos - but (be'Shogeg) from a Korban.

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah then queries him from the Seifa 'Zu hi Shevu'as Shav she'Chayavin al Zedonah Malkos ve'al Shig'gasah Patur'. Once again, he tries to extrapolate from there that - 'Achalti', ve'Lo Achal is Patur from Malkos.

(c)And here too, Rebbi Avahu counters Rebbi Yirmiyah - by moving the Limud to Shogeg, to say that 'Achalti', ve'Lo Achal be'Shogeg brings a Korban Oleh ve'Yored.

(d)We query this however, on the grounds that the author of the Reisha, Rebbi Yishmael (who restricts a Korban Oleh ve'Yored to the future) will not tally with the author of the Seifa - Rebbi Akiva (who holds that one brings a Korban on the past as well).

10)

(a)We therefore establish the Reisha, like the Seifa, like Rebbi Akiva, yet the Tana is not precluding 'Achalti', ve'Lo Achal from a Korban - but 'Ochal', ve'Lo Achal.

(b)What prompts us to say this is that - since Rebbi Akiva is speaking about a Shevu'ah of the future ('Lo Achal', ve'Achal'), he would be more likely to preclude a case that also refers to the future, than one that refers to the past.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan instructed the Beraisa expert to omit Meimar from the list of the three exceptions of La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh - because, since the Noder's words cause an animal to become Kadosh, it cannot be considered a La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh.

11)

(a)Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Oshaya initially failed to understand - what sort of punishment the Pasuk in ki Savo "Im Lo Sishmor ... Leyir'ah es Hash-m, Vehifla Hash-m es Makoscha" is referring to, seeing as the word "Vehifla" is an uncommon word.

(b)We know that the Pasuk is referring to a Mekalel es Chavero be'Sheim - because the reference to fearing the Name of Hash-m implies that one takes care not to express His Name in vain, which is precisely what Mekalel es Chavero be'Sheim is guilty of doing.

(c)The Pasuk in ki Seitzei (with reference to Malkos) "Vehipilo ha'Shofet" however - taught him that "Vehifla" refers to Malkos.

12)

(a)We reject the suggestion that ...

1. ... the Pasuk "Im Lo Sishmor" is referring to a Shevu'as Emes as well - on the basis of the Pasuk in Mishpatim (in connection with a Shomer) "Shevu'as Hash-m Tih'yeh bein Sheneihem", a clear indication that the Torah permits a Shevu'as Emes.

2. ... even though the Torah permits a Shomer to swear to appease the owner, any other form of Shevu'as Bituy receives Malkos for having made the Shevu'ah, on the basis of the Pasuk in Va'eschanan - "u'vi'Shemo Tishave'u", dispelling all doubts that there are occasions when making a Shevu'as Emes is permitted Lechatchilah.

(b)We query this answer however, inasmuch as we need the Pasuk in Va'eschanan to teach us the Din of Rav, who, quoted by Rav Gidal stated that, based on the Pasuk "Nishba'ati va'Akayeimah Lishmor Mishpetei Tzidkecha" - one should swear in order to bring oneself to fulfill a Mitzvah in which one is lax (exclusively).

(c)We refute ...

1. ... this Kashya however in that - for this we have another similar Pasuk in Eikev ("u'Bo Sidbak, u'vi'Shemo Tishave'a").

2. ... the suggestion that perhaps the Pasuk ("Im Lo Sishmor La'asos ... Vehifla Hash-m") comes to sentence someone who pronounces the Name of Hash-m in vain, to Malkos - by retorting that surely Mekalel Chavero be'Sheim is not worse than merely pronouncing the Name of Hash-m in vain.

(d)The questioner knew that too, and what he really meant to ask was that - perhaps the La'av comes for the latter case, whereas for the former, who has performed two sins, Malkos will not suffice.

13)

(a)We answer by citing the Pasuk "Lo Sekalel Cheresh" (in conjunction with "ve'Nasi be'Amcha Lo Sa'or") which teaches us that - cursing someone is no more than a plain La'av (since no other punishment is mentioned there).

(b)And we need "Im Lo Sishmor La'asos ... Vehifla" to teach us that - in spite of being a La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh, it is subject to Malkos.

(c)Alternatively, based on the same Pasuk - this Pasuk at least serves as the base La'av, on which "Im Lo Sishmor ... " comes to add Malkos; whereas pronouncing the Name of Hash-m in vain - does not have its own La'av (and there is no punishment without a Pasuk of warning).

(d)Neither will the Pasuk "es Hash-m Elokecha Tira" solve the problem - since it is an Asei, and not a La'av.