1)

(a)The Beraisa discusses the Pasuk "Kol Cheilev Shor ve'Chesev va'Eiz Lo Socheilu". According to Rebbi Yishmael, one is Chayav Malkos (be'Meizid or a Chatas be'Shogeg) for each one. The Chachamim however, rule that - one is Chayav only set of Malkos for all three.

(b)The simple interpretation of their Machlokes is - that Rebbi Yishmael holds Lokin al La'av she'bi'Kelalus (one La'av incorporating a number of things), whereas the Chachamim hold Ein Lokin al La'av she'bi'Kelalus.

(c)Alternatively, both Tana'im hold Ein Lokin al La'av she'bi'Kelalus, and Rebbi Yishmael holds Chayav al Kol Achas ve'Achas - because the words "Shor va'Chesev va'Eiz" are superfluous (since the Torah could have written "Kol Cheilev Lo Socheilu" ...

(d)... whereas according to the Chachamim, the Torah writes "Shor va'Chesev va'Eiz" - to preclude the Cheilev of a Chayah from the prohibition.

2)

(a)We conclude that the Chachamim are right, and the Torah could not have written just "Kol Cheilev Lo Socheilu", and Rebbi Yishmael therefore learns his Din - from "Kesev va'Eiz", which remain superfluous, since the Torah could have written "Kol Cheilev Shor Lo Socheilu".

(b)The Chachamim counter this however, by citing the Gezeirah-Shavah "Shor" "Shor" from Shabbos ("Lema'an Yanu'ach Shorcha") - which incorporates Chayah and Of, (necessitating the insertion of "va'Chesev va'Eiz" to preclude them).

(c)Once again, we accept the S'vara of the Chachamim, and we suggest that according to Rebbi Yishmael, the Pasuk might have written - "Kol Cheilev Kesev (or "Kol Cheilev Eiz") Lo Socheilu", and it is from the superfluous insertion of the other two that he learns 'Chayav al Kol Achas ve'Achas').

(d)The Chachamim counter this however - by arguing that, had the Torah written "Kol Cheilev Kesev Lo Socheilu", we would have confined the prohibition to the Cheilev of a lamb, because the Torah includes the Alyah (the fat-tail) of the lamb among the Emurim that are burnt on the Mizbe'ach, but not that of a goat.

3)

(a)In fact, the Chachamim's Kashya is based on a Beraisa where Rebbi Chananya discusses why the Pasuk finds it necessary to write the Emurin with regard to Shor, to Kesev and to Eiz, independently. He gives the above as the reason why we could not learn the other two from Kesev. Neither could we learn the other two from ...

1. ... Shor - because it requires more Nesachim than them.

2. ... Eiz - because it is brought as the Chatas Yachid for Avodas-Kochavim.

(b)Nor could we learn with a Tzad ha'Shaveh ...

1. ... Shor from Kesev and Eiz - because they can be brought as the Korban Pesach, which it cannot.

2. ... Kesev from Shor and Eiz - because they are brought as the Chatas for Avodas-Kochavim (Tzibur and Yachid respectively).

3. ... Eiz from Shor and Kesev - because each of them has something in excess over it, the former with regard to Nesachim, the latter with regard to the fat-tail.

(c)So we revert to the original Limud (that the Torah could have omitted all three), and yet we could not have included the Cheilev of a Chayah in the prohibition - because the Pesukim concerned are written in the Parshah of Korbanos, and we have a principle Davar ha'Lameid me'Inyano (so that the preclusion of Chayah regarding Kodshim (from whose realm Chayos are disqualified) will not extend to Chulin.

(d)The Chachamim too, hold of the principle Davar ha'Lameid me'Inyano - only they maintain that we cannot learn a La'av ("Kol Cheilev Shor va'Chasev va'Eiz Lo Socheilu", from Kareis ("Ki Chol Ochel Cheilev ... ve'Nichresah" (whereas Rebbi Yishmael holds that one can). Consequently, if not for "Shor va'Chesev va'Eiz", the Cheilev of a Chayah would have been included.

4)

(a)Alternatively, "Shor va'Chesev va'Eiz" comes to teach us the D'rashah of Rav Mari regarding the Alyah of Chulin, based on the difference between the Alyah of a lamb - which is classified as Cheilev, and that of a goat - which is not

(b)Rav Mari therefore told Rav Z'vid that - the Alyah of Chulin is permitted, based on the above Pasuk, where the Torah only forbids Cheilev that is equal in all three animals.

(c)This explains - why the Chachamim do not consider "Shor va'Chesev va'Eiz" superfluous to learn Rebbi Yishmael's D'rashah.

(d)Rebbi Yishmael counters this - by explaining that the Torah could have made its point by inserting "Shor va'Chesev" (from which we would still have precluded the Alyah from the Isur of Cheilev, since it does not apply to Shor), leaving "Eiz" to teach us that one is Chayav for the Cheilev of each one.

5)

(a)According to Rebbi Chanina, in a case where someone eats Cheilev of a Shor, of a Kesev and of an Eiz be'Shogeg in one He'elam - Rebbi Yishmael will agree that one is only Chayav one Chatas ...

(b)... because, unlike Arayos (which are all Chayav separate Chata'os because each case is mentioned under a different name), they all appear in the Pasuk under the heading of Cheilev.

(c)The Beraisa discusses someone who eats two k'Zeisim of Cheilev of one name - from the same part of the body, or of two names - from two different parts of the body (e.g. the kidneys and the intestines).

(d)Based on the D'rashah "ve'Asah Achas" "ve'Asah Heinah" (in the Pasuk in Vayikra, in connection with the Korban Chatas), the Beraisa obligates someone who eats two k'Zeisim of ...

1. ... the same kind of Cheilev in two Ha'alamos or ...

2. ... two different kind of Chalavim in one He'elam - to bring two Chata'os.

6)

(a)Rami bar Chama ...

1. ... agrees with the first ruling - seeing as Ha'alamos divide ...

2. ... but not with the second ruling - since they are both subject to the same La'av, and there is nothing to divide between them.

(b)When Rav Chisda answered that the Tana is referring to Cheilev of Nosar - he objected on the grounds that, in that case, he ought also to be Chayav an Asham Me'ilos for Mukdashin.

(c)Rav Sheishes therefore answers - that the Tana is referring to Cheilev of Mukdashin.

7)

(a)And he establishes the author as Rebbi Yehudah. In a Beraisa which discusses someone who eats Cheilev of Neveilah or Cheilev of Mukdashin, the Tana Kama sentences him to two sets of Malkos - one for Cheilev and one for Zarus (even a Kohen is a Zar regarding the Cheilev, which belongs to Hash-m).

(b)According to Rebbi Yehudah - one receives three sets of Malkos for Cheilev of Mukdashin, one for Zarus, and two for Cheilev.

8)

(a)When the Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael heard Rav Sheishes' answer - they laughed.

(b)They suggested that one might have established the first Beraisa (regarding Chata'os) like Rebbi Yishmael - by a case where one ate Cheilev of any two of Cheilev Shor, Kesev and Eiz, and he will be Chayav two Chata'os, like Rebbi Yishmael.

(c)And for the same reason that he (Rav Sheishes) declined to do that, he could not establish it like Rebbi Yehudah either. Rav Sheishes declined to establish the earlier Beraisa like Rebbi Yishmael - who, as Rebbi Chanina explained, agrees that one is only Chayav one Chatas.

(d)And we know that Rebbi Yehudah will make the same distinction between Malkos and Chatas as Rebbi Yishmael - because Rebbi Elazar said that he does.

(e)So Resh Lakish establishes the Beraisa (regarding two k'Zeisei Cheilev in one Ha'alamah) like bar Tutni - who maintains that even when there are no Ha'alamos to divide, then the fact that they are prepared in two different dishes (one cooked and one fried) divides.

9)

(a)In the Beraisa that we just cited, Rebbi Yehudah learns from the three Pesukim "Chukas Olam le'Doroseichem ... Kol Cheilev ve'Chol Dam Lo Socheilu" (Vayikra), "Kol Cheilev Shor ve'Chesev va'Eiz Lo Socheilu" (Tzav) and "ve'Chol Zar Lo Yochal Ki Kodesh heim" (Emor) that - someone who eats Cheilev of Kodshim is Chayav three sets of Malkos (two for eating Cheilev and one for Zarus).

(b)According to the Rabbanan, he is only Chayav two (one for Cheilev and one for Zarus).

(c)When Rav Shizbi asked Rava what the Rabbanan will do with the first two Pesukim, the latter answered that - the first Pasuk refers specifically to Cheilev of Kodshim, and the second, to Cheilev of Chulin.

(d)The Rabbanan require separate Pesukim for Cheilev Kodshim and Cheilev Chulin, because had the Torah written only ...

1. ... Kodshim ("Chukas Olam") - we would confine the La'av to Kodshim, which has many Chumros over Chulin.

2. ... Chulin ("Kol Cheilev Shor") - we would preclude Cheilev Mukdashin from the Isur, because it has a concession regarding Cheilev (in that it is not necessary to bring the Alyah of an ox or of a goat on the Mizbe'ach (see Shitah Mekubetzes 40), whereas Chulin has no such concession.

10)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah learns that even the Pasuk "Kol Cheilev Shor" is referring specifically to Cheilev Kodshim - because that is where it is written (with reference to the subsequent Pasuk "Ki Kol Ochel Cheilev min ha'Beheimah asher Yakriv ... ve'Nichr'sah").

(b)We cannot extrapolate from this that the Rabbanan do not hold of Davar ha'Lameid me'Inyano - because their reason for confining "Kol Cheilev Shor ... " to Chulin (even though it is written by Kodshim, is due to the fact that we cannot learn a La'av ("Kol Cheilev Shor ... Lo Socheilu") from Kareis "Ki Kol Ochel Cheilev... ").

(c)In another Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Kol Cheilev ve'Chol Dam Lo Socheilu" that - just as Cheilev is subject to two La'avin, so too, is Dam.

(d)According to the Chachamim - Dam, like Cheilev, is only subject to one La'av.

11)

(a)Based on the Pasuk "ve'Chol Dam Lo Socheilu", we ask - why Rebbi Yehudah requires a Hekesh to learn two La'avin for Dam, since even if the Torah had written the first La'av for Dam without the Hekesh to Cheilev, we would have known it anyway?

(b)We therefore amend Rebbi Yehudah's statement - to learn (not a second, but) a third La'av from the Hekesh.

(c)Based on the Pasuk of Zarus, the problem with Rebbi Yehudah is - why, even after the amendment, we need a Hekesh for a third La'av? Why can we not learn it from the La'av of Zarus (in Emor)?

(d)We answer this Kashya - with the argument that, if not for the Hekesh, we would have precluded Dam from the La'av Zarus, just as it is precluded from Me'ilah.

(e)According to the Rabbanan - one is not even Chayav a second La'av of Zarus for eating/drinking Dam.

12)

(a)The Rabbanan preclude the blood of Sheratzim from the Isur of Dam - because of the Hekesh to Cheilev, which is independent from the Basar (whereas the blood of Sheratzim is considered an integral part of its Basar).

(b)This means that - someone who drinks the blood of a Sheretz is Chayav for eating a Sheretz (rather than for eating Dam [but not that he is Patur altogether]).

(c)When the Tana adds 've'Ein Mitztarfin Zeh Im Zeh', he means that - if somebody eats a small piece of Basar together with the Cheilev, he will not combine to make up a Shi'ur of Isur (due to the principle Ein Heter Mitztaref le'Isur, which only applies to Nazir).

13)

(a)We query the Hekesh (of Dam to Sheretz) from a Beraisa, which learns from the Pasuk "ve'Zeh lachem ha'Tamei", that the blood of a Sheretz combines with the Sheretz itself, to make up the Shi'ur Sheretz - a proof that the blood of a Sheretz is already considered part of the Sheretz without the Hekesh (rendering the Hekesh redundant).

(b)And we resolve the problem - inasmuch as, if not for the Hekesh, we would have learned from the above Pasuk that - the blood of a Sheretz is included in the Din of Tum'ah (but not in the Isur of eating).

(c)Ravina informs us that, on the basis of the Hekesh, someone who eats less than a k'Zayis of the blood of a snake, complemented by a small piece of Basar, is Chayav. We might otherwise have thought that - only the eight Sheratzim that are subject to Tum'ah (which do not include the snake), are included in the Hekesh ...

(d)... and Ravina teaches us that the Hekesh incorporates all Sheratzim whose blood is an integral part of the Basar, whether they are subject to Tum'ah or not).

14)

(a)Rava explains that one of the three K'risos that the Torah writes in connection with Dam (two in Acharei-Mos and one in Tzav) is for Dam Kodshim, one for Dam Chulin and one for Dam ha'Tamtzis - the last blood that oozes from the neck after the Shechitah.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah - is the Tana who extends Kareis to Dam ha'Tamtzis.

(c)We then query Rava's statement, even according to Rebbi Yehudah, inasmuch as, given that Dam Kodshim is Chayav Kareis, Rebbi Yehudah's source for Kareis by Dam Chulin and Dam ha'Tamtzis is - "Dam" and "Kol Dam", respectively.

(d)What Rava therefore learns from the third Kareis is - the blood of Kisuy ha'Dam.

15)

(a)Rava then discusses the five La'avin that the Torah writes (in Vayikra, Tzav, Acharei-Mos and Re'ei) in connection with blood, four of them covering all four areas (Kodshim, Chulin, Dam Kisuy and Dam ha'Tamtzis) to which we just referred - the fifth La'av is that of Dam Evarim (the blood contained in the other limbs of the animal).

(b)Additional Pesukim written by Dam refer to Eiver min ha'Chai, Basar be'Chalav and Chalav Pesulei ha'Mukdashin, and from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "Kol Nefesh Mikem Lo Sochal Dam", we learn - the prohibition of a Gadol assisting a Katan to drink blood.

(c)Rebbi Ila, who maintains that someone who eats Ma'aser Dagan, Ma'aser Tirosh and Ma'aser Yitzhar (corn, wine and oil of Ma'aser Sheini) receives three sets of Malkos - is referring to Ma'aser Sheini.

(d)The problem with Rebbi Ila is that - this seems to be a La'av she'bi'Kelalus (for which there ought to be only one set of Malkos).

(e)Based on the source Pasuk in Re'ei "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha Ma'asar Degancha, Tiroshcha ve'Yitzharecha", we initially answer that - the entire Pasuk is superfluous, seeing as we have already learned the prohibition from the earlier Pasuk "ve'Achalta Lifnei Hash-m Elokecha Ma'asar Degancha ... ".

16)

(a)The problem with this explanation is that - the earlier Pasuk is a La'av that stems from an Asei ("ve'Achalta Lifnei Hash-m ... ", but not anywhere else), which is considered an Asei, in which case we need the source Pasuk to teach us that it is also a La'av, for which one receives Malkos.

(b)We finally answer the Kashya from La'av she'bi'Kelalus by pointing out that in the Pasuk "Lo Suchal Le'echol ... " - the Torah could have written "Lo Suchal le'Ochlam" (having already listed the three items in the Asei), rendering the phrase "Ma'asar Degancha Tiroshcha ve'Yitzharecha" superfluous, to teach us that one received three Malkos.