(a)If after reaping and grinding twice, the first time be'Zadon Shabbos ve'Shigegas Melachos, and the second, be'Shigegas Shabbos ve'Zadon Melachos, one becomes aware, first of the second transgression, then of the first, according to Rava (or Rabah) he will have to bring two Chata'os, according to Abaye, only one. What is the basis of their Machlokes?
(b)If someone eats two K'zeisim of Cheilev within one He'elam, remembers the one and brings a Chatas for it, and then remembers the other, on what grounds is he Patur from bringing a Chatas on the second k'Zayis?
(c)What did Rava originally hold in a case where he ate a third k'Zayis after he realized that he had eaten the first k'Zayis, but before he realized that he had eaten the second?
(d)What made him change his mind?
1)
(a)If after reaping and grinding twice, the first time be'Zadon Shabbos ve'Shigegas Melachos, and the second, be'Shigegas Shabbos ve'Zadon Melachos, one becomes aware, first of the second transgression, then of the first, according to Rava (or Rabah) he will have to bring two Chata'os - because he does not hold of G'reirah li'G'reirah.According to Abaye, only one - because he holds of G'reirah li'G'reirah.
(b)Someone who eats two k'Zeisim of Cheilev within one He'elam, remembers the one and brings a Chatas for it, and then remembers the other is Patur from bringing a Chatas on the second k'Zayis - because the Chatas that someone brings for eating one k'Zayis of Cheilev, automatically covers all k'Zeisim of Cheilev that he ate within the same Ha'alamah.
(c)Rava originally thought that the third k'Zayis, which was eaten in the same Ha'alamah as the second K'zayis, but not as the first, will not combine with the first (due to G'reirah), because initially, he did not hold of Gereirah at all.
(d)He changed his mind however, when he heard from Abaye that G'reirah is effective.
2)
(a)What is obvious to Abaye and Rava, is not so obvious to Rebbi Zeira (or to Rebbi Yirmiyah). What was Rebbi Zeira's Safek (regarding two half-ki'G'rogros)?
(b)How many Chata'os is a man obligated to bring if eats - in one He'elam ...
1. ... one k'Zayis of Cheilev, one of blood, one of Nosar and one of Pigul?
2. ... two k'Zeisim of Cheilev?
(c)Does it make any difference whether he eats them within a K'dei Achilas P'ras or not?
(d)If someone eats two half-k'Zeisei Cheilev in longer than a K'dei Achilas P'ras, is he obligated to bring a Chatas?
2)
(a)What is obvious to Abaye and Rava, is not so obvious to Rebbi Zeira (or to Rebbi Yirmiyah). Rebbi Zeira was not certain whether, if someone reaped and ground one half a ki'Ge'rogeres be'Shigegas Shabbos ve'Zadon Melachos, and another half ki'G'rogeres be'Zadon Shabbos ve'Shigegas Melachos, he would be Chayav to bring a Chatas or not. Abaye and Rava took for granted that Shigegas Shabbos and Shigegas Melachos combine as if they were performed in one Ha'alamah; Rebbi Zeira is not so sure.
(b)Someone who eats within one Ha'alamah ...
1. ... a k'Zayis of Cheilev, one of blood, one of Nosar and one of Pigul is -Chayav to bring four Chata'os.
2. ... two k'Zeisim of Cheilev - is Chayav only one Chatas.
(c)As far as two whole k'Zeisim is concerned - it makes no difference whether he eats them within a K'dei Achilas P'ras or not.
(d)Rebbi Asi (or Rebbi Zeira) resolved the She'eilah. Someone who eats two half-k'Zeisei Cheilev in longer than a K'dei Achilas P'ras - is Patur from a Chatas.
3)
(a)In order for there to be a Chidush, we initially establish our Mishnah, which obligates someone who ate first one half-k'Zayis of Cheilev, and then another, within a K'dei Achilas P'ras, like Rebbi Yehoshua. What does Rebbi Yehoshua say? What is the Chidush?
(b)How did Rebbi Asi (or Rebbi Zeira) cite this Beraisa in response to Rebbi Asi (or Rebbi Yirmiyah)'s solution to the previous She'eilah?
(c)What did Rebbi Asi (or Rebbi Yirmiyah) mean when he retorted 'Mar a'Reisha Masni Lei, ve'Kashya Lei; Anan a'Seifa Masninan Lei, ve'Lo Kashya Lan'?
(d)To establish the Chidush of the Reisha of the Mishnah, Rav Huna establishes it like Rabban Gamliel. What does Raban Gamliel say? What is the case?
3)
(a)In order for there to be a Chidush, we initially establish our Mishnah, which obligates someone who ate first one half-k'Zayis of Cheilev, and then another, within a K'dei Achilas P'ras, like Rebbi Yehoshua, who says that - if someone eats two K'zeisim of Cheilev in one Ha'alamah, the two dishes divide, and are considered like two La'avin (for which he has to bring two Chata'os). The Tana comes to teach us that even according to Rebbi Yehoshua, dishes only divide Lehachmir, but not Lehakel.
(b)Rebbi Asi (or Rebbi Zeira) cited this Beraisa in response to Rebbi Asi (or Rebbi Yirmiyah)'s solution to the previous She'eilah - to prove that one cannot extrapolate the Din of two half-k'Zeisim from that of two whole ones, like Rebbi Zeira thought one could.
(c)Rebbi Asi (or Rebbi Yirmiyah) retorted 'Mar a'Reisha Masni Lei, ve'Kashya Lei; Anan a'Seifa Masninan Lei, ve'Lo Kashya Lan' - meaning that it is the Seifa of the Mishnah ('mi'Sh'nei Minin, Patur') that we eatablish like Rebbi Yehoshua (and the Chidush is that, according to Rebbi Yeshoshua, since two kinds of dishes divide [le'Chumra], they also cannot combine [le'Kula], as we explained), not the Reisha. The author of the Reisha cannot possibly be Rebbi Yehoshua according to whom he would indeed be Patur for eating two half-K'zeisim of different dishes (as we just explained).
(d)To establish the Chidush of the Reisha of the Mishnah, Rav Huna establishes it like Rabban Gamliel - who says that Yedi'ah only divides by full Shiurim, but not by half Shiurim, and the Mishnah teaches us that if after eating one of the half-K'zeisim, he realized that he had sinned, the Yedi'ah does not divide, and he is Chayav.
71b----------------------------------------71b
4)
(a)If someone eats two K'zeisim of Cheilev in one He'elam, and became aware that he had eaten, first the one K'zayis, then the other, Rebbi Yochanan obligates him to bring two Chata'os. How does he learn this from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Al Chataso ve'Heivi"?
(b)What does Resh Lakish learn from "me'Chataso ve'Nislach Lo"?
(c)What does ...
1. ... Resh Lakish then learn from "Al Chataso ... "?
2. ... Rebbi Yochanan learn from "me'Chataso ve'Nislach Lo"?
4)
(a)If someone eats two K'zeisim of Cheilev in one He'elam, and became aware that he had eaten, first the one K'zayis, then the other, Rebbi Yochanan obligates him to bring two Chata'os. He learns this from the Pasuk "Al Chataso ve'Heivi" which implies - that one must bring a separate Chatas for each sin.
(b)Resh Lakish learns from "me'Chataso ve'Nislach Lo" - that even though he only brought a Chatas for a part of his sin, he attains forgiveness for the whole sin.
(c)
1. ... Resh Lakish learns from "Al Chataso ve'Hevi" - that if he becomes aware that he sinned only after he had actually brought his Chatas, he is Chayav two Chata'os.
2. ... Rebbi Yochanan learns from "me'Chataso ve'Nislach Lo" - that if after having eaten one a half K'zeisim, he became aware that he ate one K'zayis, and then he ate another half-K'zayis within the Ha'alamah of the first half, he only needs to bring one Chatas, because half a K'zayis is not Chashuv, and does not require a Yedi'ah for its atonement. Consequently, the Yedi'ah that he had after the first K'zayis covers the half-K'zayis too, in which case it is also Gorer the second half-K'zayis together with it.
5)
(a)According to one side of Ravina's She'eilah, Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue over whether 'Yedi'os Mechalkos' or not, but even Resh Lakish will agree that 'Hafrashah Mechalekes'. What does this mean?
(b)What is the second side of the She'eilah?
(c)Abaye and Rava learnt earlier that Yedi'ah does not divide for Chata'os. Like which of the two current opinions does he hold?
5)
(a)According to one side of Ravina's She'eilah, Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue over whether 'Yedi'os Mechalkos' or not, but even Resh Lakish will agree that 'Hafrashah Mechalekes' - meaning that, even if a Yedi'ah in between two K'zeisim (that one ate be'He'elam Echad) does not divide (to obligate a second Chatas), Hafrashah (separating his Chatas), does.
(b)According to the second side of the She'eilah - even Rebbi Yochanan, who holds Hafrashah Mechalekes, will agree with Resh Lakish that Yedi'ah does not. And Resh Lakish, who holds that Hafrashah does not divide, will will agree that Kaparah (actually having brought the Chatas) does (because this is the one case which divides according to all opinions).
(c)Abaye and Rava learnt earlier that Yedi'ah does not divide for Chata'os - like Resh Lakish, according to the first side of the She'eilah; unanimously according to the second side.
6)
(a)What is the third alternative to interpret the Machlokes Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish?
(b)We established above that the Pasuk "Al Chataso ve'Hevi" (according to Resh Lakish) refers to after the Kaparah (when he is Chayav for each K'zayis that he ate); and that the Pasuk "me'Chataso ve'Nislach Lo" (according to Rebbi Yochanan) refers to someone who ate one and a half K'zeisim before becoming aware that he ate one K'zayis, and then he ate another half-K'zayis within the Ha'alamah of the first half. How do we attempt to prove the third side of Ravina's She'eilah from there? How do we attempt to prove from here that ...
1. ... Resh Lakish is strict in both cases?
2. ... Rebbi Yochanan is lenient in both cases?
(c)On what grounds do we reject this proof?
6)
(a)he third alternative to interpret the Machlokes Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish is - that Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue in both cases: Rebbi Yochanan holds that both Yedi'ah and Hafrashah divide, whereas in the opinion of Resh Lakish, neither do.
(b)We established above that the Pasuk "Al Chataso ve'Hevi" (according to Resh Lakish) refers to after the Kaparah (when he is Chayav for each K'zayis that he ate); and that the Pasuk "me'Chataso ve'Nislach Lo" (according to Rebbi Yochanan) refers to someone who ate one and a half K'zeisim before becoming aware that he ate one K'zayis, and then he ate another half-K'zayis within the Ha'alamah of the first half. We attempt to prove from here that ...
1. ... Resh Lakish is strict in both cases, because if he were to agree that Hafrashah divides - then why would he establish "Al Chataso ve'Hevi" specifically by after Kaparah rather than after Hafrashah?
2. ... Rebbi Yochanan is lenient in both cases, because if he were to agree that Yedi'ah does not divide - then why would he establish "me'Chataso ve'Nislach Lo" by someone who ate one and a half K'zeisim of Chelev rather than by after Yedi'ah (between two k'Zeisim)? This seems to prove the third side of the Sha'aleh.
(c)We reject this proof however, on the grounds - that we may be uncertain as to the extent of their Machlokes, so we concede both to Rebbi Yochanan and to Resh Lakish, only what we know for sure (Kaparah according to Resh Lakish, and if someone ate one and a half K'zeisim ... according to Rebbi Yochanan).
