Clarification: Nevertheless, he is obligated to pay whoever removes the dye ...

Reason: Because, since it came to his hands, he is Chayav to perform an act of returning ...

Source: As the Gemara said above (on Daf 98a) in connection with 'Someone who throws a coin into the Sea'.

Clarification: It nevertheless speaks where he stole dyes that have already been soaked ...

Reason: Because if he crushed them and soaked them, he would have acquired them with Shinuy.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he stole a monkey and soaked dyes, with which he then dyeed the monkey.

Question: In that case, he spoiled it with his own hands, and since in such a case, it is a Hezek Nikar, he is Chayav?

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that 'de'Tzava bahen Kof' means that he dyeed in an inferior manner - like a monkey, which is ugly'.

Question #1: He benefits, seeing as his wool has risen in value, so he ought to pay for thr Hana'ah ...

Precedent: Like the case in the second Perek, where 'The animal ate from the (fruit in) the street' (on Daf 19b), and where 'It fell into someone's garden', in 'ha'Koneis', (above, Daf 55b)?

Question #2: And in Perek Eilu Na'aros (Kesuvos, Daf 30b & 31a) where it says that 'If Reuven sticks somebody else's beverage into Shimon's throat, he (Shimon) is obligated to pay'?

Answer #1: One can differentiate between the casea - inasmuch as the Hana'ah here came about neither through his actions, nor through those of his animal ...

Implied Question: And in the case where his friend stuck the beverage down his throat, even though there too, it was not caused by his own actions ...

Answer: Nevertheless, he did benefit bodily.

Answer #2 (on original Question): Alternatively, the Hana'ah in our case is not considered Hana'ah, since it is merely a bit nicer-looking.

Reference: The Gemara in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim, Daf 22b) asks why the Gemara does not learn the Isur Hana'ah fro "Lo Ye'achel".

Implied Question: Even though other Hana'os are also forbidden ...

Answer: It sees fit to mention dyeing and burning - 'dyeing', because it is merely an appearance; and 'burning' - since the Isur disappears as it is burning.

Question: In Perek Kol Sha'ah (Ibid. Daf 27b) the Gemara permits wood to be burned, according to the opinion that holds 'Ein Sh'vach Eitzim be'Pas', and it cannot fine wood that is Asur other than a kind of chair or a stool?

Answer: Oil is available whilst it is burning, whereas wood becomes a flame, which in turn, is produced by the coal.

Question: Why is it that here we need a Pasuk to forbid burning, whereas by T'rumah Teme'ah, we need a Pasuk to permit it, as the Gemara Darshens (in Shabbos, 25a) 'It shall be yours, to burn under your pot'?

Answer #1: That is because we would otherwise have thought that we learn T'rumah from Ma'aser, which is lenient - by which the Torah writes "I did not burn from it be'Tum'ah', as the Gemara states in 'Bameh Madlikin (Ibid.)

Answer #2: Rabeinu Tam however, explains that the Torah needs to forbid dyeing and burning here, there where they are not done in the usual way ...

Answer #2 cont.): Such as dyeing figs and pomegranates and things that one does not usually dye, and burning is needed for oil that does not stand to be burned at all.

Implied Question: And as for the case cited in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim, Daf 25b) where a man anointed his daughter with undeveloped olives of Orlah, and where he declared 'Did I do it in the way that one normally benefits?'

Answer: There it was not the way of benefiting at all.

Refutation: His explanation is difficult however - in that the Gemara tries to learn from here that an appearance is considered Hana'ah, and it refutes the proof on the grounds that 'Here (by Orlah) is different, because the Torah reveals that it is'.

Refutation (cont.): This implies that the Pasuk is not coming to forbid something that is not the normal way of benefiting, but to forbid even what is merely an appearance.

Question: Why do we not then resolve the She'eilah the other way round - namely, since we need a Pasuk to forbid it, we have a proof that an appearance is not considered Hana'ah?

Answer: We can learn from here that it is considered as if it is available.

Question: According to Rebbi Yehoshua in Perek ha'Or ve'ha'Rotev (Chulin, Daf 121a) who learns Orlah "Pri" "P'ri" from Bikurim, and who holds that one only receives Malkos on Orlah on what comes from olives and grapes, but what comes from other fruit is permitted ...

Question (cont.): On what grounds is it forbidden to dye with the liquid that comes from them, and even more so with the water in which their peels have been soaked?

Answer #1: The Pasuk is only needed to prohibit dyeing with olives and grapes and with what comes from them or with the actual 'dust' of their ground peels (See Maharsha).

Conclusion: Granted 'Lo Yetzaba' in the Beraisa is speaking about dyeing with Orlah and with the liquids that come from it in all forms, but the Pasuk is speaking in the manner that Tosfos described.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is the actual fruit of Orlah exclusivvely that we learn "P'ri" from "P'ri" from Bikurim, which is why its liquids are precluded, but not what guards the fruit - which we include from "es Piryo" - what is secondary to the fruit (B'rachos, 34b); its liquids are not precluded.

Implied Question: Nor can we preclude them from Bikurim ...

Answer: Since there is no Din of 'Shomer la'P'ri' with regard to Bikurim.

Implied Question: And even though it transpires that the Tafeil (what is secondary) is more stringent than the Ikar (the main article) ...

Answer: One needs to explain this in order not to query it from the Sugya at the beginning of 'Eizehu Mekoman (Zevachim, Daf 48b [See Sugya there on 48b & 49a]).

Refuted Answer: One cannot however, answer that although what comes from other fruit is not subject to Malkos, it is however, subject to the Asei of "va'Araltem Orlaso" ...

Refutation #1: Since to whatever "va'Araltem pertains, so does "Lo Yochal" which is written immediately after it.

Refutation #2: Moreover, if the liquid of other fruit of Orlah was subject to an Isur Asei, from where would we know that one cannot dye with it, seeing as we would then need the Pasuk to forbid drinking the liquid or to derive benefit from it when it is available?

Refuted Question: Nor can one ask that, since the Shomer la'P'ri, which is not edible, is included, we are forced to say that Orah is Asur be'Hana'ah, so why do we need another Pasuk to teach us that?

Answer: Since there are many Shomrim that are edible.

Question: But Rava answered earlier that Orlah is different, seeing as it is based on Pesukim and we cannot therefore learn from it ; in that case, how can he ask from Orlah on to Tum'ah?

Answer #1: This supports the text in the earlier Gemara that reads 'Rabah'.

Answer #2: And if we read 'Rava', it must be just a Dichuy (a makeshift answer).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that if one adds a specific measure of water, one will find a Revi'is more.

Refutation: This is difficult, since even if one will not find the extra Revi'is, why is it Tahor, seeing as it is impossible for some of the water not to remain in the garment?

Explanation #2: The explanation is therefore like the Tosefta in the fourth Perek of Ohalos, which, discussing how one assesses a garment that has absorbed a Revi'is of blood, explains that ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): After bringing a specific measure of water and washing the garment with it, one brings other water into which one places a Revi'is of blood; If the two have the same appearance, then it is Tamei; otherwise, it is Tahor.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Now it will make no difference if some of the water remains in the garment, since just as some of the water remains, so too, does some of the blood ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): Because since in any event what emerged and what remained is all mixed together, they have the same appearance as if it would all have emerged.

Clarification: And the Tana mentions 'Tehorah' and 'Teme'ah' in connection with the house into which it is placed, but as far as the garment itself is concerned, it is Tamei, seeing as a Revi'is of blood became absorbed in it, as Rashi explains.

Question: It is not logical however, to say the blood that remains in the garment should make any difference, seeing as it cannot emerge as a result of the washing?

Answer: Though it is not really a problem if we rely on it to be stringent.

Explanation #3: It is also possible to explain that after assessing how much of the initial water remains in the garment, one brings the same measure of more water as the original batch, only one detracts the amount that is absorbed in the garment.

Question #1: The problem is how one can possibly make such an assessment correctly?

Question #2: Moreover, why does one need to measure the initial water? Without that one can know if there is a Revi'is of blood in what emerged via the washing ...

Question #2 (cont.): By squeezing into a vessel all that emerges from the garment, and b y then measuring how much there is between the water and the blood ...

Question #2 (cont.): And by then bringing a Revi'is of blood and adding water until one has the equivalent amount of water and blood as emerged from the garment ...

Question #2 (concl.): If they share the same appearance, then it is Tamei?

Answer: It therefore seems that the Tana only mentions 'a specific measure of water' because then, if they find a Revi'is more than the amount of water that they placed, it will not be necessary to bring more water, since for sure a Revi'is of blood emerged from the garment ...

Answer (cont.): But if there is not a Revi'is more, then he must bring a Revi'is of blood and add to it water up until the combined amount of water and blood is equivalent to the combined amount after one washed the garment with it ...

Answer (concl.): If the two appearances are the same, then it is Tamei; if not, it is Tahor.

Question: But this is difficult, seeing as the Tosefta says that one adds a Revi'is of blood only after bringing the water?

Implied Question: Even though in an emergency one could extract a Revi'is of blood from it - through heating it in an oven or using soap ...

Answer: Since a Revi'is of blood cannot emerge via a regular wash, it is Tahor ...

Clarification (cont.): According to Resh Lakish because Dam Tevusah is de'Rabanan, and according to Rebbi Yochanan because one is not normally particular about it seeing as it cannot emerge via a regular wash ...

Conclusion: This is how we have to learn, based on the Sugya in Maeches Nidah, in Perek ha'Ishah (Daf 62b, See Tosfos there DH 'Im'); And the Gemara does not see fit to cite it here.

Clarification: Rav Kahana cites this Sugya in Nidah according to Resh Lakish; here as well, it is only according to Resh Lakish that the Gemara needs to give this answer ...

Reason: Because according to Rebbi Yochanan, there is no Kashya from Orlah on to Tum'ah since according to him, it all depends on fussiness ...

Implied Question: Nevertheless, 'If he dyed it with the peels of Orlah, it must be burnt' ...

Answer: Because, since he benefits from the dye, and is pleased with it, one cannot permit it on account of his not being fussy.

Explanation #1: What Rashi explains here - that the Tana mentions 'Sefichim' because planting is forbidden in Shevi'is and that only Sefichim are therefore available ...

Question: Only applies here, but in connection with Ma'aser and Pe'ah, about which the Tana writes in Shabbos, Daf 68a) 'Whatever is a food and is guarded', and which the Gemara explains ...

Question (cont.): 'Food' - to preclude Sefichim of various dyes, it remains unclear as to why the Gemara says 'Sefichim'?

Explanation #2: Rashi's explanation in Pesachim (Daf 51b, See Tosfos there DH 'Kol') - 'because one tends not to pick them in the year that they are planted, only after four or five years' appears more correct.

Clarification: The Reisha of this Mishnah, in Maseches Shevi'is (7:1) cites a great K'lal, which incorporates whatever is either human or animal food or whatever can be used to dye.

Clarification: It speaks where he initially picked it to eat, in which case he is permitted to sell it, and both it and the proceeds of the sale are subject to Biy'ur ...

Reason: Because the fruit itself is permanently forbidden

Source: As the Gemara in Avodah-Zarah (Daf 54b) learns from "Kodesh Tih'yeh Lachem".

Clarification: When it turns into coal ...

Implied Question: Even though there are times when the Hana'ah and the burning occur simultaneously - such as when one warms oneself next to it, or when one cooks ...

Answer: Nevertheless, these are not its main functions, which only occur after it turns into coal, such as for example, to heat an oven for baking ...

Explanation #1: Whereas the Hana'ah and the destruction by dyeing occur simultaneously, since he benefits when he wears the garment, and that is when it becomes finished, when the dye begins to fade from day to day.

Explanation #2: Rashi however, explains that it is at the time when the caldron boils that the root is destroyed and the dye takes hold.

Refutation: But this is not correct, seeing as we say with regard to Sh'mitah, appearance is considered important , in which case the destruction does not occur when the dye takes hold (See Tosfos Succah, 40a DH 'Yatza').

Explanation #1: According to Rashi, who translates it as 'wood that illuminates like a lamp'.

Clarification: We will have to say that when the Gemaa answers that 'S'tam wood is meant for burning', it includes Eitzim de'Mashchan.

Refuted Explanation: One cannot explain that it is specifically other wood that is S'tam designated for firewood, and that that of Mashchan is Bateil to it ...

Refutation: Because in Succah (Daf 40a, See Tosfos there DH 'Yatz'u') it implies that a Lulav is subject to Shevi'is because its Hana'ah applies simultaneously with its destruction, seeing as it is fit to sweep the house with it - and it does not say that it is Bateil to other types of wood; and the same will apply to Eitzim de'Mashchan ...

Conclusion: With the difference that S'tam Eitzim de'Mashchan are also fit to use as firewood, an are not comparable to a Lulav, which S'tam is fit to sweep the house.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Chananel however, explains 've'ha'Ika Eitzim de'Mashchan?' with which one warms oneself, such as in a bonfire which is made for that purpose ...

Explanation #2: And where the Hana'ah and the destruction come simultaneously - since one warms oneself in front of it as the wood burns.

Precedents: And the word 'Mashchan' is like 'Tamri de'Mashchan (dates that get hot) - in Kesuvos (Daf 10b) and 'Telulah O Shechunah' (If it will be hot') - in Yoma (53b).

Explanation of Sugya: Rava replies 'S'tam Eitzim Lehasakah Nitnu' - meaning that they are designated to heat an oven - in which case the Hana'ah comes only after they have been destroyed.

Explanation of Sugya (cont.): Consequently, even warming oneself is permitted, since the name Shevi'is does not take effect on them ...

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara here considers Eitzim de'Mashchan 'Hana'asan u'Bi'uran Shaveh' ...

Answer: Nevertheless, with regard to the wood of Isur the Rabanan did not forbid even warming oneself or using it for illumination, only to use it as a stool.

Reason: As the Gemara says in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim, Daf 27b, See Tosfos there DH 'mi'Chelal'), since the Hana'ah only comes after the Isur has begun to be destroyed ...

Conclusion: Hence they only forbade a stool, which falls under the category of 'Hana'aso u'Biy'uro Shaveh' seeing as the Isur is still there whilst h is benefiting from it.

Question #1: In the first Perek of Nidah (Daf 8a, See Tosfos there DH 'Ma'an') the Gemara says 'If sap/resin is considered fruit, then it will be subject to Sh'mitah; whereas if it is not, then it will not' ...

Question #1 (cont.): Why is that? If the Hana'ah and the destruction are simultaneous, even if it is not considered fruit, it ought to be Asur in the Sh'mitah, and if they are not, then even if it is fruit, it ought to be permitted?

Question #2: Moreover, on what grounds foes it draw a distinction between the sap of the fruit and the sap of the trunk?

Answer: It is therefore clear that although the sap definitely falls under the category of Hana'so u'Biy'uro Shaveh, if it would not be considered fruit, it would be Bateil to the tree, and it would be as if the fruit was inside the leaves and had not yet emerged.

Answer (cont.): But if, on the other hand it is, then it is an independent entity and is not Bateil to the tree, in which case it possesses the sanctity of Sh' mitah.