Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Chananyah bar Shalmayah concurs with Rav Huna, who in the name of Rav, just permitted preparing the neck for Shechitah in the way prescribed by our Mishnah (even though it may result in Tolesh). We query this however, from Rav Shimi bar Chiya Amar Rav - who forbids wrapping flax shavings and rags tightly round a leaking tap of a barrel containing liquid on Yom-Tov – in case he comes to squeeze out some liquid in the process (even though he did not intend to do so).

(b) We answer by citing Abaye and Rava, according to whom even Rebbi Shimon (who permits ‘Davar she’Ein Miskaven’ on Shabbos and Yom-Tov) will concede to the latter ruling of Rav – because it is inevitable (‘P’sik Reisha ve’Lo Yamus?’).

(c) We have another problem however. Shmuel rules like Rebbi Shimon regarding Davar she’Ein Miskaven - Rav, like Rebbi Yehudah (who holds ’Davar she’Ein Miskaven, Asur’), in which case, back comes the question why Rav permits the above procedure on Yom-Tov.

(d) So we conclude that Rav holds ‘Davar she’Ein Miskaven Asur’ even though he holds ‘Tolesh La’av Haynu Gozez’. And the reason that he permits preparing the neck of the animal in the way prescribed by our Mishnah, on Shabbos is – because even if he were to detach some of the wool by hand, it is ‘Oker Davar mi’Gidulo’ (as we explained earlier) in an unconventional way (‘ke’le’Achar Yad’), which would only involve an Isur de’Rabbanan.

(a) We have a problem with the last ruling too however, from a Beraisa which discusses someone who plucks a feather from the wing of a bird, clips off the end and trims it on Shabbos. The Tana obligates him to bring three Chata’os.

(b) According to Resh Lakish ...

1. ... plucking is Asur - because of Gozez (shearing) ...
2. ... clipping off the end - because of Mechatech (cutting to size), and ...
3. ... trimming - because of Memachek (smoothening).

(c) We reconcile this with Rav, who declines to equate Tolesh with Gozez – by differentiating between Tolesh of wool, which is unconventional, and Tolesh of feathers, which is the way that one normally detaches feathers.

(a) We assume that since Rav holds like Rebbi Yossi ben ha’Meshulam (that Tolesh is not the same as Gozez), the reverse is also true (with regard to Davar she’Eino Miskaven). In a case where a Parah Adumah has two hairs which are red at the roots, but black on top - Rebbi Yossi ben ha’Meshulam permits cutting off the tops of the hairs using regular shears.

(b) The problem with this is – that according to Rav (with whose opinion Rebbi Yossi ben ha’Meshulam purportedly concurs), it ought to be forbidden, because of Davar she’Ein Miskaven (even though he did not intend to shear it at all).

(c) And we counter it - by distinguishing between a sheep (which is normally shorn) and a cow (which is not) in which case, it is not considered Gozez.

(d) We reject this answer however, from a Beraisa, which learns from the ‘Vav’ of “Lo Sa’avod bi’Vechor Shorecha *ve*’Lo Sagoz Bechor Tzonecha” – that the prohibition of working extends to a sheep, and that of shearing, to a cow.

(a) So we suggest that Parah is different and the Isur of shearing does not apply to it – because it is Kodshei Bedek ha’Bayis (whereas Bechor is Kodshei Mizbe’ach).

(b) But we refute this suggestion on the basis of a statement by Rebbi Elazar, who rules – that Kodshei Bedek ha’Bayis may not be shorn (albeit mi’ de’Rabbanan).

(c) We therefore conclude that Parah Adumah is different, because it is not common – and therefore the Chachamim did not include it in the decree together other Bedek ha’Bayis.

(a) We reject the suggestion that the Parah should be redeemed and shorn, before declaring it Hekdesh a second time – on account of the fact that, due to its costliness, it is not practical to do that.

(b) Shmuel - permits be’Hana’ah, Hekdesh worth a Manah that one redeemed for a Perutah.

(c) We cannot however do this in the previous case – since Shmuel only permitted it Bedi’eved, but not Lechatchilah.

(d) Finally, to explain why Rebbi Yossi ben ha’Meshulam permits shearing the Parah using shears, we answer – that even though Rav holds like him regarding Tolesh, *he* does not hold like Rav regarding Davar she’Ein Miskaven.

(a) Rav Asi Amar Resh Lakish confines the preparation of the Bechor’s to doing it by hand, and he amends the words ‘Oseh Lo Makom *be’Kupitz*’ to ‘Oseh Lo Makom *le’Kupitz*’ (see Tosfos 24b DH ‘ha’Shochet’).

(b) We ask whether, when our Mishnah says ‘ve’Chein Tolesh es ha’Sa’ar Lir’ os Mum’, the Tana means that it is permitted to do so Lechatchilah, like it is by the Shechitah of a Bechor. ‘ve’Chein’ - might also refer to the Seifa, meaning that if one did prepare the neck for inspection in this way, one is subsequently forbidden to move the detached wool from its place.

(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah resolves the She’eilah from a Beraisa - which specifically permits someone who takes his blemished animal to a Chacham for inspection, to prepare the neck for inspection Lechatchilah, as in our Mishnah.

(d) Rav Mari proves this from the Mishnah itself, because it would not be necessary to teach us the prohibition of moving the wool from its place – because if that is forbidden in the Reisha, where the Shechitah is already evidence of his motives for having inadvertently performed Tolesh, how much more so in the Seifa, where there is nothing to demonstrate his innocent motives.

7)

(a) Our Mishnah discusses the hair of a Bechor Beheimah Ba’al-Mum that fell out, and that one placed on the window-sill. According to Rebbi Yehudah, Akavya ben Mahalalel permits it once the animal has been Shechted (see Tosfos Amud 1 DH ‘Sa’ar’). The Chachamim forbid it – in case one then takes advantage of the Heter to keep the animal alive in order to cut the hair (or the wool) whenever it grows and benefit from it, or to work it (and Lechatchilah Pesulei ha’Mukdashin may only be Shechted and eaten).

(b) Rebbi Yossi maintains that it is not the hair of an Bechor Ba’al-Mum that was Shechted that Akavya permitted – but the hair of one that died by itself.

(a) ‘Tzemer ha’Meduvlal’ is – the wool of a Bechor Ba’al-Mum that became detached but that remained stuck to the animal.

(b) The Tana permits Tzemer ha’Meduvlal that looks like it is part of the wool that was shorn after the Shechitah – but forbids it if it does not.

(c) The Mishnah cites this ruling here – because it is a S’tam Mishnah like the Chachamim.

(a) The problem with Rebbi Yossi’s statement ‘Lo ba’Zeh Hitir Akavya ... ‘ is – that if Akavya permits the hair of a Bechor Ba’al-Mum that died, how could he possibly forbid that of one that has been Shechted?

(b) We therefore amend it to read - that the Machlokes does not pertain to a Bechor Ba’al-Mum that was Shechted (where the Chachamim concede that it is permitted), but to one that died.

(c) And the Chachamim agree with Akavya by ‘va’Achar-Kach Shachto’ – on the grounds that since the Shechitah permits the wool that is attached, it also permits the wool that is detached (‘Migu’).

(d) Rebbi Asi Amar Resh Lakish qualifies the Machlokes between Akavya and the Chachamim, by restricting it to where a Chacham had already examined the Mum before the hair fell out. If he had not – then even Akavya will concede that the hair that fell out is Asur (like a Tam [an unblemished animal], which will be discussed later]).

(a) Rav Sheishes queries Rebbi Asi from a Beraisa. Initially, we interpret the word/s of ...

1. ... the Tana Kama ‘Ba’alei Mumin Osrin be’Chol-Shehu’ – to mean – that if a Ba’al-Mum becomes mixed up in a thousand Temimim, they are all forbidden.
2. ... Rebbi Yossi ‘Yevukar’ – that one examines the animals until one finds the Ba’al-Mum, which one then removes, permitting all the Temimim.

(b) The problem with this is – that there is then no reason for the Tana Kama to disagree with it.

(c) Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah therefore establishes the Machlokes by wool of a Bechor Ba’al-Mum which fell out before the Shechitah and which was placed on the window-sill before it became mixed up with Chulin wool, in which case, we will interpret ‘Yevukar’ to mean – that we give it to a Chacham to examine for a Mum ...

(d) ... if he declares it a Mum - Rebbi Yossi then permits it (like he does in our Mishnah), whereas the Tana Kama (who is Rebbi Yehudah) still forbids it (like he does in the Mishnah).

(a) We extrapolate from Rebbi Yossi – that, according to the Chachamim, the Shechitah permits the wool that fell out, even if a Chacham examined the Bechor only after it fell out ...

(b) ... a Kashya on Rebbi Asi Amar Resh Lakish – in that whatever the Rabbanan permit by a Shechutah, Akavya permits even by a Meisah.

(c) To resolve the problem, Rava reinterpret ‘Yevukar’ to mean – that we examine what the Chacham said (provided the examination of the animal took place before the wool fell out).

(a) Based on the fact that the Bavli’im lived in a rather dark environment (since it was surrounded by mountains), and referring to them as ’those stupid Babylonians’, Rebbi Yirmiyah commented that it was not because they came from a dark place that Rav Nachman and Rabah bar Avuhah had to make dark statements (that were not enlightening).

(b) He disagreed with the Rav Nachman’s interpretation of the previous Beraisa (‘be’Gizas Bechor Ba’al-Mum Askinan’), citing Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who connected the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yossi to a Mishnah in Nidah, where Rebbi Meir learns there that if a pile of earth containing a k’Zayis min ha’Meis got lost, then all the piles in the field are Tamei (even if they searched for it but failed to find it). Whereas the Chachamim say – that having searched for it as far as a rock or virgin soil, and not finding it, all the piles are permitted.

(c) Based on that Machlokes, Rebbi Yochanan now interprets Rebbi Yossi’s ‘Yevukar’ to mean – that they search the entire herd for the animal with a blemish, and the herd then becomes permitted even if they did not find it. In which case ...

1. ... Rebbi Yossi concurs – with the Chachamim, and ...
2. ... the Tana Kama – with Rebbi Meir.

(a) Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan interprets ‘Yevukar’ to mean that they search for the Ba’al-Mum and find it, and he connects this Machlokes with a Machlokes between Rebbi and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in a Beraisa. With regard to the case that is discussed in the Mishnah in Nidah (but where they searched and *did* find a grave, Rebbi rules that one assumes the grave that is found to be the lost one, and do not need to continue searching, whereas according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel – one must continue to search the entire field, and only if they do not find another one may they assume that the one they found is the lost one.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan then interprets ‘Yevukar’ to mean – that one searches for a Ba’al-Mum, and having found one, the search is called off.

(c) In that case ...

1. ... Rebbi Yossi concurs – with Rebbi, and ...
2. ... the Tana Kama – with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel.

(a) Rebbi ...

1. ... Asi disagrees with Rebbi Chiya bar Aba, because – even if Rebbi Yossi holds like the Chachamim and makes do with a search of the field for the Tum ’ah, that is only because should they fail to find the k’Zayis of Meis, they can attribute its disappearance to a raven or a mouse having removed it, whereas in the case of a Bechor Ba’al Mum that got lost, if they searched and did not find it, there is no way that a Ba’al Mum can have disappeared and even Rebbi Yossi will agree with Rebbi Meir (and he will have to search for it again).
2. ... Chiya bar Aba on the other hand, disagrees with Rebbi Asi because – even if the Tana Kama holds like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel regarding a field in which they found a grave, that is only because it is common to bury people in fields, but in the case of the Bechor Ba’al Mum that got lost – once they find the animal with the blemish, why should they suspect that it might not be the same one (and the Rabbanan will therefore agree with Rebbi).

(b) Rebbi ...

1. ... Chiya bar Aba counters Rebbi Asi’s argument – inasmuch as even a blemish can disappear – if it is a passing blemish that healed.
2. ... Rebbi Asi, on the other hand, counters Rebbi Chiya bar Aba’s argument – in that really it quite simple for an animal to become blemished, during the friendly skirmishes that sometimes occur between domesticated animals.