1)
(a)What does Rebbi Shimon learn from "ba'Kodesh ba'Esh Tisaref"?
(b)And from where does he learn that all Pasul Kodshei Kodashim and the burnt parts of the Kodshim Kalim must be burnt in the Azarah?
(c)Where must one burn the flesh of Kodshim Kalim which became Pasul?
(d)How does Rebbi Shimon's initial Derashah create a problem with the previous Derashah concerning all Isurim in the Torah?
1)
(a)Rebbi Shimon learn from "ba'Kodesh ba'Esh Tisaref" - that a Chatas that became Pasul must be burned in the Azarah (and not taken outside to be burned).
(b)He learns that all Pasul Kodshei Kodashim and the burnt parts of the Kodshim Kalim must be burnt in the Azarah - from the word "v'Chol" (with which the Pasuk begins - to Darshen "v'Chol ... ba'Kodesh ba'Esh Tisaref"). Note: The parentheses around the word 've'Chol' in the Gemara should be ignored.
(c)The flesh of Kodshim Kalim which became Pasul - must be burned anywhere in Yerushalayim.
(d)Since Rebbi Shimon needs "ba'Esh Tisaref" to teach us that a Pasul Chatas must be burned in the Azarah - how can Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi learn from it that all Isurin in the Torah need not be burned?
2)
(a)How do we then attempt to learn the Isur Hana'ah from the Pasuk in Tetzaveh "v'Im Yivaser mi'Be'sar ha'Milu'im Min ha'Lechem Ad ha'Boker ... Lo Ye'achel"? what will we then learn from "v'Sarafta es ha'Nosar"?
(b)The Gemara rejects this suggestion however, on the grounds that "v'Im Yivaser ... Lo Ye'achel (Ki Kodesh Hu)" is needed for Rebbi Elazars' Din. What does Rebbi Elazar say?
(c)How does Abaye now attempt to learn that all Isurin in theTorah are Asur b'Hana'ah, using the three Pesukim; "ba'Esh Tisaref"; "Lo Ye'achel Ki Kodesh Hu", and "v'Chol Chatas Asher Yuva mi'Damah ... Lo Se'achel"?
(d)The Gemara objects to this on the grounds that the latter Pasuk is a 'La'av she'bi'Kelalus'. What exactly, is the Gemara's objection?
2)
(a)We then attempt to learn the Isur Hana'ah by all Isurin in the Torah from "v'Im Yivaser mi'Be'sar ha'Milu'im Min ha'Lechem Ad ha'Boker ... Lo Ye'achel" - because this Pasuk too, is not needed for itself (since we already know that from the Pasuk in Tetzaveh "v'Sarafta es ha'Nosar ba'Esh". Consequently, we will again apply the Pasuk to forbid all Isurin b'Hana'ah (using 'Im Eino Inyan'). "v'Sarafta es ha'Nosar ba'Esh" - teaches us that only Nosar must be burned, but not all the Isurin in the Torah.
(b)Rebbi Elazar learns from "Lo Ye'achel (Ki Kodesh Hu)" - that someone who eats anything that became Pasul in the Kodesh, has contravened a La'av.
(c)Abaye now attempts to learn that all Isurin in the Torah are Asur b'Hana'ah from Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's original Pasuk "Kol Chatas Asher Yuva ... ba'Esh Tisaref". Only he inverts the order of the Derashos, like this: from "ba'Esh Tisaref" we already know that a Chatas that became Pasul may not be eaten, because of Rebbi Elazar's Derashah (from the Pasuk ... "Lo Ye'achel Ki Kodesh Hu"). In that case, why does the Pasuk need to write "v'Chol Chatas Asher Yuva mi'Damah ... Lo Se'achel"? - unless it is to teach us (through 'Im Eino Inyan') that all Isurin in the Torah are Asur b'Hana'ah.
(d)The Gemara objects to this - because the Pasuk "v'Chol Chatas Asher Yuva mi'Damah ... Lo Se'achel" is still needed for itself (to be sentence someone who eats a Chatas whose blood was taken into the Heichal to Malkus). Why is that? Because Rebbi Elazar's Pasuk "Lo Ye'achel Ki Kodesh Hu" is a 'La'av she'Bichelalus' (a general La'av, for which one does not receive Malkus). In that case, it is not superfluous to use it to forbid all Isurin b'Hana'ah?
3)
(a)Rav Papa finally learns the Isur Hana'ah by all Isurim in the Torah from the Pasuk in Tzav "v'ha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei, Lo Ye'achel, ba'Esh Yisaref". How does he learn it from there?
(b)What is the problem with learning the prohibition of eating Kodshim which became Tamei, from Ma'ser Sheni?
(c)How do we resolve that problem?
3)
(a)"v'ha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei, Lo Ye'achel, ba'Esh Yisaref", Rav Papa explains, is not needed for itself, since we already know that Kodshim which became Tamei may not be eaten, from a Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser Sheni, which is not as stringent as Kodesh, yet it is forbidden. Consequently, we can use it 'Im Eino Inyan' to forbid all Isurin in the Torah b'Hana'ah.
(b)The problem with learning the prohibition of eating Kodshim which became Tamei, from Ma'aser Sheni is that 'Ein Mazhirin min ha'Din' (We cannot learn any punishment from a Kal va'Chomer). Consequently, even though we do not need the Pasuk "v'ha'Basar ... Lo Ye'achel, ba'Esh Yisaref" for the La'av, we will still need it for the Chiyuv Malkus.
(c)We resolve that problem by learning Kodesh from Ma'aser not through a Kal va'Chomer, but by means of a Hekesh (from which one can derive the punishment, as well as the La'av); because the Torah writes in Re'eh "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha Ma'asar Degancha ... u'Vechoros Bekarcha".
4)
(a)Why does the Gemara cite Abaye's ruling: that if someone eats various kinds of insects, he receives four, five or even six, sets of Malkus?
(b)How does the Gemara answer this question?
(c)Is one obligated to burn all Isurin in the Torah?
4)
(a)How can we use the Pasuk "v'ha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei, Lo Ye'achel, ba'Esh Yisaref" 'Im Eino Inyan' for all Isurin in the Torah? Maybe we need it for itself (Kodesh which became Tamei), to add a second La'av to the one that we already know from the Hekesh to Ma'aser Sheni? And it is to prove this point that the Gemara cites Abaye's ruling: that if someone eats various kinds of insects, he receives four, five or even six, sets of Malkus.
(b)We only add La'avin when the extra Pasuk cannot be used for anything else, but not when it can, as in our case.
(c)One is not obligated to burn all Isurin in the Torah - because the Torah writes "v'Sarafta es ha'Nosar ba'Esh" - but not all the Isurin in the Torah.
24b----------------------------------------24b
5)
(a)What do we learn from the word (or from the letter 'Vav' of the word)...
1. ... "v'ha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei ... Lo Ye'achel"?
2. ... "v'ha'Basar, Kol Tahor Yochal Basar"?
(b)But why should we need a Pasuk to forbid eating Emurim which became Tamei, when we already have the Pasuk "v'Ha'Nefesh Asher Tochal Basar mi'Zevach ha'Shelamim Asher la'Hashem" to teach us that?
(c)How many sets of Malkus will someone receive for eating Emurim which became Tamei?
5)
(a)We learn from the word (or from the letter 'Vav' of the word)...
1. ... "v'ha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei ... Lo Ye'achel" - that even wood and frankincense (of Kodesh), which are technically not called food, are nevertheless subject to Tum'ah as if they were.
2. ... "v'ha'Basar, Kol Tahor Yochal Basar" - that someone who eats Emurin (the parts of the Korban that are burned on the Mizbe'ach) which became Tamei, receives Malkus. .
(b)"v'Ha'Nefesh Asher Tochal Basar mi'Zevach ha'Shelamim Asher la'Hashem" - speaks about a Tamei person eating Tahor Emurim (for which one is Chayav Kares); here, we are speaking about a Tahor person eating Tamei Emurin, which is only a La'av.
(c)For eating Emurim which became Tamei, one receives two sets of Malkus - one for eating Emurim (which is forbidden even to a Kohen), and one for eating Tamei Emurin.
6)
(a)Rebbi Avahu quoting Rebbi Yochanan, exempts someone who eats something that is forbidden in an unusual way, from Malkus. What example does the Gemara give for this?
(b)What does Rebbi Avahu quote Rebbi Yochanan as saying in the second Lashon?
(c)What is the Gemara's example there?
(d)What is the Halachic difference between the two Leshonos?
6)
(a)The example the Gemara gives for eating something that is forbidden in an unusual way - is someone who ate uncooked Chelev.
(b)In the second Lashon, Rebbi Avahu quotes Rebbi Yochanan as saying that - one is exempt from Malkus for deriving benefit from Isurei Hana'ah in an unusual way.
(c)The Gemara's example there - is someone who took Chelev (which is normally used as fuel or for tanning skins) and placed it on his wound as a balm.
(d)According to the first Lashon, Rebbi Yochanan's exemption is confined to Isurei Achilah, but not to Isurei Hana'ah; whereas according to the second Lashon, it extends to Isurei Hana'ah, as well.
7)
(a)How does Rebbi Zeira attempt to prove Rebbi Yochanan's Din (by Achilah - according to both the first and the second Lashon) from the Mishnah in Orlah, which sentences someone who eats the juice of olives and grapes exclusively of Orlah to Malkus?
(b)How does Abaye refute Rebbi Zeira's proof?
7)
(a)The Mishnah in Orlah sentences someone who eats the juice of olives or grapes of Orlah, to Malkus - implying that if he ate the juice of other fruits (which in those days, was not normally done), he would be Patur (like Rebbi Yochanan).
(b)Had the Mishnah wanted to tell us Rebbi Yochanan's Din, then it ought to have talked about eating Orlah fruit in an unusual way (e.g. if he ate cooked nuts). Why did the Tana need to present us with a case of fruit-*juice*? Unless it is because fruit-juice is not called fruit at all, and that is why he is Patur (and not because of Rebbi Yochanan's Din).
8)
(a)Abaye maintains that one will receive Malkus for Kil'ei ha'Kerem, even if one eats it fruits in an unusual way, because Kil'ei ha'Kerem is different. In what way is Kil'ei ha'Kerem different?
(b)From where do we know that Kil'ei ha'Kerem is Asur b'Hana'ah?
8)
(a)Kil'ei ha'Kerem is different than other Isurei Achilah - because the Torah does not use a term that denotes Achilah by it , only "Pen Tukdash ha'Melei'ah".
(b)We know that Kil'ei ha'Kerem is Asur b'Hana'ah - from "Pen Tukdash ha'Melei'ah", implying that one should not derive benefit from it, but burn it.