Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Resh Lakish Rav Acha bar Ya'akov forbid inviting a Nochri to partake of a piece of lung - because, seeing as a Nochri is not obligated to Shecht, the animal only becomes permitted to him once it dies, and any part of the animal that is removed from the animal before that (including the lungs, as Resh Lakish explained) is 'Eiver min ha'Chai.

(b) A Yisrael is nevertheless permitted to eat it - because Shechitah permits the entire animal, even if it is still alive when the Shechitah takes place.

(c) Rav Papa intend to query Rav Acha bar Ya'akov - from the principle that 'there is nothing which is permitted to a Yisrael and forbidden to a Nochri.

(d) He changed his mind however - because he could see no flaw in Rav Acha bar Ya'akov's reasoning.

(a) The Beraisa discusses someone who wishes to eat fresh, healthy meat from an animal that has just been Shechted. The Tana suggests he takes - from the Beis-ha'Shechitah, because it has already been skinned.

(b) Besides salting it well, he must also wash it well - because it contains a lot of blood that did not manage to drain.

(c) He must wait until it dies before eating it however - because of the La'av of "Lo Sochlu al ha'Dam".

(d) The Tana adds - that once, the animal dies, both a Yisrael and a Nochri are permitted to eat it (negating the previous ruling of Rav Acha bar Ya'akov).

4)

(a) Our Mishnah ...

1. ... declares a bloodless Shechitah - Kasher.
2. ... permits eating from such an animal with Tamei hands.

(b) Rebbi Shimon says that even if there is no blood, the animal, Chayah or bird is nevertheless Muchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah - through the Shechitah, because since ('Migu') it renders the animal ready to eat, it also renders it ready to receive Tum'ah.

(c) Our Mishnah implies that if blood did spill from the neck, the animal would indeed become Tamei through contact with the hands of the Shochet - rendering the meat a Shelishi.

(d) We ask on this however - that there is no such thing as a Shelishi by Chulin (i.e. the lowest level of Tum'ah is a Sheini).

(a) The previous problem would not exist if the Tana was referring to Kodshim (where there is a Shelishi and even a Revi'i). We know that he is not, from the fact that he talks about Beheimah, Chayah va'Of - and a Chayah cannot become Hekdesh.

(b) We also know that he is not, because he validates a bloodless Shechitah, whereas by Kodshim, the blood is crucial for the Zerikah. And we have a further proof from the inference 'Ha Yatz'a Meihen Dam, Ein Ne'echalin ... ' - implying that Dam Kodshim is Machshir Lekabeil Tum'ah, whereas Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan states - that the blood of Kodshim is not Machshir.

(c) And he learns this from the Pasuk "al ha'Aretz Tishpechenu ka'Mayim" - implying that blood that can be spilt like water is Machshir, but not blood that requires sprinkling.

(d) And we bring a final proof that the Mishnah cannot be talking about Kodshim, from the fact that when there is no blood, the animal is not Muchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah - whereas we have a K'lal that 'Chibas Hekdesh' renders all Hekdesh (even Atzei Hekdesh) food, to be Muchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah.

6)

(a) Rav Nachman solves our Kashya (regarding a Shelishi by Chulin) by establishing our Mishnah by Chulin which one purchased with the money of Ma'aser Sheini, but not according to Rebbi Meir. Rebbi Meir in the Mishnah in Parah, rules that someone who is Tamei mi'de'Rabbanan is Metamei Kodesh and Posel Terumah. 'Metamei Kodesh' means - that it renders the Kodesh a Shelishi, and the Kodesh can now make a Revi'i; 'Posel Terumah' means - that it renders the Terumah a Shelishi, but the Terumah cannot make a Revi'i.

(b) He concludes 'u'Mutar be'Chulin u've'Ma'aser'.

(c) The Chachamim too, permit him to eat Chulin, but place Ma'aser on a par with Terumah.

(a) Based on the Lashon 'va'Chachamim Osrin - implying an Isur to eat, but not to touch, Rav Shimi bar Ashi objects to Rav Nachman's answer, since our Mishnah is speaking about touching.

(b) Rav Shimi bar Ashi knows that our Mishnah is speaking about touching the meat, and not just eating it - because the Tana says 've'Ne'echalin be'Yadayim Mesa'avos', implying that the Tamei is permitted to feed someone else, from which we extrapolate that if there had been blood, this would be forbidden.

(c) So Rav Papa establishes our Mishnah according to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar in a Beraisa. When the Tana Kama says 'Ein Yadayim Techilos le'Chulin', he means that wherever we find Yadayim Techilos (as we shall see shortly), it is only with regards to Terumah and Kodshim, but not to Chulin, where the hands are always considered Sheniyos.

(d) When Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar says ...

1. ... 'Yadayim Techilos le'Chulin', he means - that they are even Techilos for Chulin too (and certainly, for Terumah).
2. ... 'Sheniyos li'Terumah' (such as S'tam Yadayim), he means that they are Sheniyos for Terumah exclusively.

(a) According to the Chachamim in the Mishnah in Yadayim, hands are always Sheniyos. The Tana who holds that by a house that is stricken with Tzara'as, they are Techilos is - Rebbi Akiva.

(b) The Chachamim hold, in the previous case, that Chazal decreed hands by a Bayis ha'Menuga because of hands elsewhere, Rebbi Akiva holds - that they decreed hands by a Bayis ha'Menuga because of the whole body.

(c) Both Tana'im will hold - that 'Bi'ah be'Miktzas Lo Sh'mah Bi'ah' (in which the hands must be Tamei mi'de'Rabbanan)?

(a) Rav Papa establishes our Mishnah like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar and not like Rebbi Akiva, according to whom hands can be Techilos - because for all we know, Rebbi Akiva only declares Yadayim a Rishon regarding Terumah and Kodshim, which are more stringent, but not regarding Chulin.

(b) Rebbi Akiva Darshens in the Mishnah in Pesachim from the Pasuk (in connection with a loaf that becomes a Sheini in an earthenware oven) "ve'Chol K'li Cheres ... Yitma" (from the future tense used by the Pasuk) - that the loaf can even make a Shelishi (even in Chulin).

(c) When the Tana states that Rebbi Akiva made this D'rashah 'Bo ba'Yom', he is referring - to the day on which they deposed Raban Gamliel, and appointed Rebbi Elazar ben Azarya in his place.

(d) Nevertheless, Rav Papa declined to establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Akiva, even assuming that the hands are Sheniyos - because as far as we know, Rebbi Akiva is only talking about Tum'ah d'Oraysa (such as a Sheretz), but not about Tum'ah de'Rabbanan (such as S'tam Yadayim) like our Mishnah.

(a) Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Hoshaya establishes our Mishnah by Chulin She'Na'asu al Taharas Hekdesh, not like the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua, who holds 'Chulin She'Na'asu al Taharas Hekdesh La'av ke'Kodesh Dami' - because of the principle 'Batlah Da'ato Eitzel Kol Adam' (the owner's mind is Bateil to everybody else, for whom this is Chulin and not Kodesh).

(b) Rebbi Eliezer rules in the Mishnah in Taharos that someone who eats a food that is ...

1. ... a Rishon - becomes a Rishon.
2. ... a Sheini - becomes a Sheini.
3. ... a Shelishi - becomes a Shelishi.

(c) One must eat at least half a 'P'ras' (i.e. two k'Beitzim) for this Tum'ah to take effect.

(d) If one were to touch the same food - he would remain Tahor - because a person cannot receive Tum'ah from a food, only from an Av ha'Tum'ah.

(a) According to Rebbi Yehoshua, someone who eats a Rishon or a Sheini - becomes a Sheini.

(b) If he eats a Shelishi, he becomes a Sheini with regards to Kodesh - but not with regards to Terumah, which remains Tahor should he touch it.

(c) He does not however, permitted to eat Terumah - because that will turn it into a Shelishi le'Tum'ah, which is forbidden.

(d) For there to be a Shelishi at all, Rebbi Yehoshua must be talking about - Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah.

(a) 'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah/Hekdesh' means - that a Kohen declares a Kedushas Terumah (i.e. he will treat his Chulin as if it was Terumah) on his fruit, or a Kohen or a Yisrael declares a Kedushas Hekdesh on his animals (i.e. he will treat his Chulin as if it was Hekdesh), in order to train himself to eat his Terumah or Kodshim with Taharah).

(b) Rebbi Elazar could not have established our Mishnah by Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah, like Rebbi Yehoshua (rather than by Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Hekdesh, not like Rebbi Yehoshua) - because the Tana is talking about meat, which is not subject to Terumah. Consequently, no Kohen will declare a Kedushas Terumah on his animals.

(c) There will be no problem with establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Eliezer - because he is non-committal about how he arrives by a Shelishi, and it may well be through Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Hekdesh.

(d) Nevertheless, the Tana inserts Chayah (even though a Chayah is not subject to Hekdesh, as we discussed at the beginning of the Sugya) - because, bearing in mind the similarities between Chayos and Beheimos, people might still declare a Kedushas Hekdesh on the former.