1)

(a)We just quoted the Beraisa which discusses someone who eats the Gid ha'Nasheh of a Beheimah Teme'ah. The problem with Rebbi Shimon, who exempts him from Malkos, assuming that he holds ...

1. ... Yesh be'Gidin be'Nosen Ta'am is that - if he also holds Isur Chal al Isur, the sinner ought to receive two sets of Malkos, whereas if he holds Ein Isur Chal al Isur, then he ought to at least receive Malkos for eating Gid ha'Nasheh.

2. ... Ein be'Gidin be'Nosen Ta'am is that - in any case, he ought to receive Malkos for eating Gid ha'Nasheh.

(b)We answer that he holds Ein be'Gidin be'Nosen Ta'am, and that he exempts him from Malkos for having eaten Gid ha'Nasheh - because of the Pasuk in Vayishlach "al-Kein Lo Yochlu B'nei Yisrael es Gid ha'Nasheh", implying that one is only Chayav for eating the Gid ha'Nasheh of an animal that would otherwise be permitted, not of one that is Asur anyway.

2)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav cites Rebbi Meir who holds that someone who eats a Gid ha'Nasheh of a Neveilah receives two sets of Malkos. The Chachamim - sentence him to only one ...

(b)... for the Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh, which took effect first.

(c)According to Rebbi Meir, he will receive Malkos for Neveilah as well, even assuming that he holds Ein Isur Chal al Isur - because it is an Isur Kolel (an incorporating Isur [seeing as the Isur takes effect on the Basar anyway, it takes effect on the Gid, too]).

3)

(a)Rav Yehudah adds that even the Chachamim will agree that someone who eats the Gid ha'Nasheh of an Olah or of a Shor ha'Niskal (that gored a person to death) will receive two sets of Malkos - because, besides being an Isur Kolel, it is also an Isur Mosif, since it is a more stringent Isur (see also Tosfos DH 'Isur Kolel') ...

(b)... inasmuch as it is also Asur be'Hana'ah.

(c)Rava assumes that the Chachamim will concede that 'Isur Chal al Isur' by Isur Kollel if it also Chamur - because we find no indication to the contrary.

(d)The Chachamim must then be - Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili (as we will now see).

4)

(a)In the Mishnah in Zevachim, the Tana Kama declares Chayav Kareis, a Tamei person who eats Kodesh, irrespective of whether the Kodesh is Tahor or Tamei. For eating Tamei Kodshim be'Meizid, a Tahor person is Chayav - Malkos (but not Kareis).

(b)Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili - restricts the Chiyuv to where he ate Tahor Kodesh, but for Tamei Kodesh, he is Patur.

(c)The Rabbanan query Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili however - on the grounds that the moment he touches the Kodesh, which he normally does whilst eating it (see Tosfos DH 'Shapir ka'Amri leih') he renders it Tamei anyway.

(d)We comment that - their query seems justified.

5)

(a)Rava explains that in fact, Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili will concede that in the case cited by the Rabbanan, the Tamei person is Chayav - seeing as the Chiyuv Kareis took effect first ...

(b)... and he renders him Patur - only if the Tum'as Basar preceded that of the person who subsequently ate it.

(c)In spite of the fact that we hold Ein Isur Chal al Isur the Rabbanan render him Chayav - because the Tum'as ha'Guf is an Isur Kolel (seeing as the person's Tum'ah incorporates Tahor Kodshim, which were previously permitted to him).

(d)Whereas Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili holds - Ein Isur Chal al Isur, even by Isur Kolel.

6)

(a)Based on what we learned earlier, the problem with Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili's ruling is - why the Tamei person is not Chayav anyway, since, even assuming that he does not hold of Isur Kolel, he surely holds of Isur Kolel when it is also Chamur (Mosif) as we explained earlier.

(b)We refute this Kashya however - by suggesting that the Isur of Tum'as Basar is more Chamur than Tum'as ha'Guf, because, whereas Basar Tamei is not subject to Teilah, Tum'as ha'Guf is.

7)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav cannot be speaking according to Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa (quoted in Shevu'os), who exempts someone who eats Neveilah on Yom Kipur be'Shogeg from a Chatas - which, besides being an Isur Kollel, is also an Isur Mosif (since Yom Kipur carries an Isur Kareis, which Neveilah does not [see Hagahos Radal]).

(b)The Beraisa discusses someone who performs be'Shogeg, a Melachah on Yom Kipur that falls on Shabbos. According to Rebbi Akiva, he is Chayav one Korban (see Tosfos DH 'Rebbi Akiva'). Based on the Pesukim in Emor "Shabbos Hi" and "Yom ha'Kipurim Hu", Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili - is Mechayev him two.

(c)What makes ...

1. ... Shabbos an Isur Mosif compared to Yom Kipur is the fact that - it adds a Chiyuv Misas Beis-Din to the Chiyuv Kareis of Yom Kipur.

2. ... Yom Kipur an Isur Kolel compared to Shabbos is the fact that - it incorporates the Isur of eating.

(d)It is important to know this, according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili - because if he did not hold of Isur Kolel and Isur Mosif, he would not hold of Isur bas-Achas either (in which case, the sinner would not be Chayav two Chata'os).

8)

(a)This Beraisa poses a Kashya on our previous interpretation of Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili - where we maintained that he does not hold Isur Kolel on its own.

(b)Ravin quoting Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina inverts the opinions (so that Rebbi Yossi Hagelili is only Mechayav one Korban). He could also have solved the problem - by establishing that Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili holds of Isur bas-Achas, even if he does not hold of Isur Kolel.

(c)Alternatively, we might have explained that the Isur Shabbos precedes the Isur Yom Kipur - based on the fact that Shabbos was fixed at the creation, whereas Yom-Tov depends on the fixture of the Beis-Din, and Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili is Mechayav two Chata'os because Yom Kipur is an Isur Kolel.

(d)We reject this explanation however - because of Rava, who will shortly take for granted that Shabbos and Yom Kipur are Isur bas-Achas, even according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili.

9)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan is quoted as saying that, according to Ravin's amendment, if someone performs a Melachah with Shig'gas Shabbos and Zadon Yom ha'Kipurim, according to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, he will be Chayav a Chatas. In the reverse case, he says - he will be Patur.

(b)Abaye explains this, based on the fact that, when Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili ruled Eino Chayav Ela Achas, he meant because of Shabbos - and he is Patur from Yom Kipur, because Shabbos preceded Yom Kipur, as we just explained

(c)And he is Patur if he was Shogeg on Yom Kipur and Meizid on Shabbos - because one does not bring a Chatas for a sin that is performed be'Meizid.

(d)Rava disagrees with Abaye's explanation - because he considers Shabbos and Yom Kipur Isur bas-Achas (since they both take effect simultaneously), in which case, whoever transgressed ought to have been Chayav two Chata'os.

10)

(a)To explain why Rav Yitzchak ba Ya'akov ... Amar Rebbi Yochanan exempted the sinner from a Chatas for having transgressed Yom Kipur, we explain - that that year was a year of Sh'mad (where the Nochrim threatened those who observed Yom Kipur), so the Chachamim annulled Yom Kipur, and instituted it on a Shabbos (when people do not work anyway) only so that the people should not forget Yom Kipur.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan in fact - did not mention Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, whose name crept in to this context by mistake.

(c)This explains Rebbi Yochanan - because, seeing as it was not really Yom Kipur, someone who remembered Shabbos, but forgot Yom Kipur, would not be Chayav for Yom Kipur.

(d)When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael - he testified that Rava's interpretation was unanimously accepted there.

11)

(a)From the fact that the Torah writes in Vayishlach "al-Kein Lo Yochlu B'nei Yisrael es Gid ha'Nasheh", rather than "B'nei Ya'akov", the Chachamim in a Beraisa prove that - the Isur was only said at Sinai and not where it is written.

(b)To reconcile the Rabbanan with the Pasuk in Vayigash (in connection with Ya'akov and his family going down to Egypt) cited by Rava "Vayis'u B'nei Yisrael es Ya'akov Avihem", we point out that - that Pasuk was written long after the Pasuk in Vayishlach, when they were not yet called the B'nei Yisrael.

(c)Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava asked Rav Ashi why the Gid ha'Nasheh did not then become prohibited from that time on - in which case it would remain a proof for Rebbi Yehudah, who claims that Gid ha'Nasheh was given whilst they were still B'nei No'ach (which they were in any case until the Torah was given at Har Sinai).

(d)Rav Ashi replied that - this was not possible, seeing as the Pasuk in Vay'chi took place after the incident with the angel, and before Matan Torah. So either we go after the time of the incident or after Matan Torah, but not after any time in between.

12)

(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar in a Beraisa, Eiver min ha'Chai applies to Beheimah, Chayah and Of, both Teme'in and Tehorin. The Chachamim - restrict it to Tehorin.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan explains that both opinions derive their rulings from the same Pasuk in Re'ei "Rak Chazak Levilti Achol ha'Dam ... ve'Lo Sochal ha'Nefesh im ha'Basar". It is - "ve'Lo Sochal ha'Nefesh im ha'Basar" thayty pertains to Eiver min ha'Chai.

(c)

1. Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar learn from "Rak Chazak Levilti Achol ha'Dam ... ve'Lo Sochal ha'Nefesh im ha'Basar" that - any species that is subject to the Isur of blood (including Tamei ones), are also subject to the Isur of Eiver min ha'Chai.

2. The Rabbanan learn from "ve'Lo Sochal ha'Nefesh im ha'Basar" that - one is only Chayav for the limb of an animal that is permitted, but not that of one that is forbidden (since the Pasuk implies that when there is no Dam ha'Nefesh together with the Basar, then one may eat it).