Question: The Riva asks that we should learn it from Orlah which had a Sha'as ha'Kosher, such as where one takes a branch from a tree that is permitted, whose fruit is not yet ripe, which one then grafts or plants?

Answer: The Ri answers that it is only what grows after it has been grafted or planted that is forbidden, and that did not have a Sha'as ha'Kosher;

Answer (cont.): Whereas the branch itself is only Asur because of the Isur that is mixed in it. Indeed, if one was able to separate the branch from what grew afterwards, it would be permitted.

Conclusion: Similarly K'lai ha'Kerem, were it not for the fact that the root is forbidden or if one were to pass a holed pot ... , it would be considered as not having had a Sha'as ha'Kosher, since the Isur that grows afterwards never had a Sha'as ha'Kosher.

Clarification: One cannot bring a 'Yochi'ach' from Shor ha'Niskal.

Reason: Because they did not have a Sha'as ha'Kosher for eating ... .

Implied Question: In Perek Kol ha'Basar (Chulin 115:) the Gemara asks 'Let Orlah prove (Tochi'ach)'? and answers.

Implied Question (cont.): The Ri explains that really the Gemara could have learned a Mah Matzinu from K'lai ha'Kerem on its own - with which a sin was performed and which one may neither eat nor derive benefit from it.

Answer: Only the Gemara prefers to learn from all these Kal va'Chomers, which is more powerful.

Question: The Rashba asks why we cannot learn that itself from a Mah Matzinu from K'lai ha'Kerem - that one receives Malkos for deriving benefit from Basar be'Chalav in an irregular manner?

Answer: The Ri answers that this is not possible, since we can counter it with a Yochi'ach from 'Shor ha'Niskal ve'Chametz she'Alav be'Bal Yera'eh, with which a sin was performed and they are only Asur ba'Achilah in the regular manner, since the Torah writes by them 'Achilah'.

Halachah: The Ri rules that the stalks and the stubble that grow from it are forbidden too, as the Gemara says later (on Daf 26:) 'A new oven which has been lit with the peels of Orlah or with the stubble of K'lai ha'Kerem must be broken'.

Question: The Ri therefore queries this however, from the Gemara in Perek ha'Ishah she'Naflu (Kesuvos Daf 80.) in connection with 'Someone who spends money on hie wife's property ... , where Rav Yehudah explains that even if he ate only branches ...

Question (cont.): And the Gemara explains there that Rav Yehudah follows his own ruling, that 'If one ate (the fruit of a field) as Orlah, Kil'ayim and Shevi'is it is considered a Chazakah - even though one is only permitted to eat the wood,seeing as the fruit is forbidden.

Conclusion: From which we can extrapolate that the wood of Kil'ayim is permitted?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam replies that that Gemara speaks about the wood that was there before the Kil'ayim was planted, and before it increased by one two-hundredth.

Implied Question: And that what the Gemara says in the first Perek of Menachos (Daf 6. & 6:) that 'T'reifah and Kil'ayim did not have a Sha'as ha'Kosher' ...

Answer: That the Gemara says with reference with 'Mashkeh Yisrael' (See Maharam), and liquid did not have a Sha'as ha'Kosher.

Clarification: It appears to the Ri that it speaks where it is not possible to cure the patient with other wood, only in this way (See Maharsha), such as via demons or some other way.

Reason: Because then one will err after idolatry.

Implied Question: And the case of ben Dama, in the second Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 27: & 28.) who was bitten by a snake, and when Ya'akov from the village of S'chanya came to cure him, Rebbi Yishmael wouldn't let him because 'Apikorsus attracts' ...

Answer: The Yerushalmi (in Perek Shemonah Sheratzim) explains that he wanted to whisper in his ear an incantation in the name of Yeshu, but via regular medication, it would have been permitted, as the Gemara says there (on Daf 28.) that when Rebbi Avahu was sick, Ya'akov the Apikores handed him a medication, which he drank'.

Explanation #1: This ('Yehareg') refers to the man; because as far as the woman is concerned, she is not obligated to give up her life in order not to be raped.

Precedent: And at the beginning of Kesuvos too (Daf 3:) the Gemara asks 'Why not inform them that Oneis is permitted?'

Explanation #2: The Ri however, reinstates the text 'Tehareg', based on the Gemara in ben Sorer u'Moreh and at the beginning of kesuvos that Oneis is permitted only there where she is 'Karka Olam' (passive), But where she performs an action, such as where they order her to bring the Ervah on herself, she is obligated to give up her life and not to perform an act.

Source: Because we learn it from a murderer, who is not obligated to give up his life unless they order him to actually kill someone else, but not if they command him either to allow them to throw him on a baby and kill him or to be killed. In such a case, he is not obligated to give up his life.

Reason: Because there, on the contrary, one can apply the S'vara 'Who says that your friend's blood is redder than mine? Maybe my blood is redder than his!'

Ruling: Regarding adultery however, if they order him to allow them to stick him into an Ervah, he is obligated to give up his life rather than comply.

Reason: Since he cannot argue that he is not performing an action; This in turn, because if they stick him into her, we have a principle that 'Ein Kishuy Ela le'Da'as (Hardening of the Eiver only comes with intent')!'

Conclusion: As we say at the beginning of ha'Ba al Yevimto (Yevamos 53.)

Clarification: According to the first Lashon 'Kuli Alma' refers to Abaye and Rava, whereas 'Lo P'ligi de'Shari' is said with reference to Rebbi Shimon, since Rebbi Yehudah rules that it Asur ...

Reason: Since Rava establishes the Machlokes of Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon by Lo Efshar ve'Lo Mechaven, since by Efshar Rebbi Shimon concedes that it is forbidden.

Clarification (cont.): But the 'Kuli Alma' in the second Lashon, when it says 'Lo Efshar ve'Lo Mechaven, le'Kuli Alma de'Shari' - refers to Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon ...

Conclusion: And this explains why the second Lashon only mentions what it changes from the first Lashon; and that is why it does mention that Efshar u'Mechaven is Asur according to both opinions.

Conclusion (cont.): And it speaks where it was not 'P'sik Reisha' (inevitable that one will transgress), because by 'P'sik Reisha', Rebbi Shimon will agree (that it is Asur).

Refutation of Alternative: We cannot say that Rebbi Shimon permits here even P'sik Reisha because it is speaking about dragging vessels, which is only an Isur de'Rabbanan (digging in an irregular manner), as the Gemara states in 'Kirah' (Shabbos 46:) ...

Reason): Since the Gemara cites in connection with it cases that are d'Oraysa, such as Me'ilah, Kil'ayim and the P'sul of Parah (Adumah).

Conclusion: Consequently, one is forced to say that all the cases cited by the Gemara are not 'P'sik Reisha'.

Clarification: The Ri also explains that the definition of all the cases of 'Lo Efshar' in the Sugya is that they cannot be performed in the normal manner other than with great difficulty.

Proof: Seeing as the Gemara considers the case of 'lowering the artisans in boxes 'Lo Efshar'.

Implied Question: And what the Gemara says in Kesuvos (Daf 5:) in connection with the She'eilah as to 'Whether one is permitted to be intimate for the first time with a virgin on Shabbos', where the Gemara states that, according to Rebbi Yehudah, it is forbidden since it falls under the category of 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven' - even though it is a case of Lo Efshar ve'Lo Mechaven?

Answer: We are forced to establish that Sugya like Rebbi Yirmiyah in Bameh Madlikin (Daf 29:) who maintains that according to Rebbi Yehudah, Efshar ve'Lo Mechaven is forbidden.

Implied Question: Even though he is disproved there in what he says that 'Ketanim Asurim' even according to Rebbi Shimon ...

Answer: He is not however, disproved in what he forbids even Gedolim, according to Rebbi Yehudah.

Clarification: Abaye apparently holds that seeing as Efshar ve'Lo Mechaven is forbidden, and Lo Efshar ve'Lo Mechaven is permitted, that the Isur is based on the fact that it is Efshar.

Wrong Text: Because the text in Bameh Madlikin (Shabbos 29:) that 'He argues with Ula, because Ula holds that the Machlokes is by Ketanim, but by Gedolim, everyone agrees that it is forbidden' is erroneous.

Wrong Text (cont.): Since throughout the Sugya the Gemara is more lenient by Lo Efshar than by Efshar - and Gedolim is synonymous with Lo Efshar?

Correct Text: The correct text is therefore ' ... everyone agrees that it is permitted'.

Conclusion: And this follows the second Lashon in our Sugya, that by Lo Efshar ve'Lo Mechaven, everyone agrees that it is permitted'.