Daf Yud Zayin Amud Alef

Rabbi Yosef: it is an argument amongst תנאים (whether the טבל of מעשר עני is prohibited דאורייתא

Beriata: Rabbi Eliezer says that you don’t have to designate מעשר עני of דמאי (even by name), but the Chachamim say that one needs to designate מעשר עני of דמאי by name, but does not need to physically separate it from the rest of the produce.

Suggestion: The Chachamim hold that a definite obligation to separate מעשר עני makes the produce prohibited to eat as טבל while Rabbi Eliezer holds that a definite obligation to separate מעשר עני doesn’t make the produce prohibited to eat as טבל.

Rejection (Abaye): If this is true, they should argue over whether or not someone can eat definite טבל before separating מעשר עני, rather, since they argue in a case of דמאי means shows that everyone holds that a definite מעשר עני requirement makes the produce טבל

Rabbi Eliezer holds that we are not suspicious of uneducated people concerning מעשר עני of דמאי since מעשר עני is permitted to anyone and an uneducated person separates and eats it himself. The Chachamim are concerned since it’s hard for an educated person to separate מעשר עני and therefore he does not separate it.

Mishna: How much טבל must one eat…?

Rav Bivi: The argument between the Chachamim and Rabbi Eliezer is about a person who eats a wheat kernel of טבל, but for flour that is טבל, they agree that he is not liable for eating less than a כזית

Rabbi Yirmiyah says that they do argue about the flour

Mishna:  Rabbi Shimon said do you not agree that someone is liable for eating an ant of any size? The Chachamim answered it is different because it is in the form of its creation. Rabbi Shimon replied that a wheat kernel is also in the form of its creation. Inference: for a wheat kernel he is held accountable but for eating a small amount of flour, he is not.

Rabbi Shimon is responding to the Chachamim according to their own opinion: I hold that even the טבל of flour, someone is held accountable for any amount. At least admit that eating a kernel in its form of creation makes the person liable. The Chachamim say that an ant is significant because it is a living creature but a kernel is not significant.

Beriata (support Rabbi Yirmiyah): the smallest amount of a prohibited food is significant and warrants lashes. The כזית only applies to קרבנות

 Mishna: The following are punished by lashes: someone who eats בכורים before the owner recites, or one who eats קדשי קדשים outside of the curtains, or who eats קדשים קלים and מעשר שני outside of walls of ירושלים. Someone who breaks the bone of a קרבן פסח that is טהור, but someone who leaves meat overnight of a טהור קרבן פסח, or breaks the bone of a קרבן פסח that is טמא does not receive 40 lashes. Rabbi Yehuda: someone who takes a mother bird who is sitting on her eggs/chicks is lashed and has no מצוה to send it away. The Chachamim say that he sends her away and does not get lashes. This is a rule: someone is not lashed for any prohibition that has a positive commandment.

Gemara: Rabbah bar bar Chanah says these are the words of Rabbi Akiva but the Chachamim say that putting the בכורים down is important but the recital is not essential (cannot eat before putting them down but can before reciting)

Let the words of the Mishna be according to Rabbi Shimon.

This is what he is telling us, that Rabbi Akiva has the same opinion as Rabbi Shimon.

Which statement of Rabbi Shimon shows that he has the same opinion?

Beriata: "ותרומת ידך" refers to בכורים. Rabbi Shimon asks what this teaches. Answer: it forbids the eating of בכורים outside of the wall. Rejection: we learn this from a קל וחומר from מעשר שני (מעשר שני is lenient but someone who eats outside of the wall is lashed, בכורים, which is strict, all the more so). Answer: it obligates lashes for eating from the בכורים before the reciting. "ונדבתיך" refers to the תודה and שלמים. Rabbi Shimon says this does not forbid from eating them outside of the wall. A קל וחומר from מעשר שני teaches this. Rather, it obligates lashes for eating תודה or שלמים before the throwing of the blood. "ובכרת" refers to the בכור. Rabbi Shimon says that this does not forbid eating them outside of the wall because a קל וחומר from מעשר שני teaches this. It cannot forbid eating before throwing the blood because a קל וחומר from קרבן תודה and שלמים teaches this. Rather, this obligates lashes for a non-kohen eating בכור, even after throwing the blood. "בקרך וצאנך" refers to קרבן חטאת and אשם. Rabbi Shimon says this cannot forbid from eating outside the wall, before throwing the blood, or a non-kohen who eats it. A קל וחומר from מעשר שני (or תודה and שלמים or בכור) teaches this. Rather, it obligates lashes for eating חטאת or אשם outside the curtains, even after the throwing of the blood. "נדריך" refers to קרבן עולה. Rabbi Shimon says this cannot forbid eating outside the wall, or before throwing the blood, or outside the curtains, or for a non-kohen who eats it. A קל וחומר from מעשר שני teaches this.

In our Gemara, there are two discussions about what types of prohibitions are punishable by מלקות. The only definite grouping seems to be related to people who use something that is set aside for holy use. What other categories ofעבירות are punishable by מלקות?