Previous daf

1)

(a) Assuming that our Tana 'ha'Mevakeres ha'Maksheh Leiled Mechatech Eiver Eiver ... ' speaks about cutting the Bechor into limbs and feeding them all to the dogs, the Mishnah poses a Kashya on Rav Huna (who holds 'Lemafre'a Kadosh') - according to whom the Din ought to be 'Yikaver'.

(b) Rav Huna will therefore establish our Mishnah - when the Bechor is cut up and fed to the dogs limb by limb (as we explained in the Mishnah).

(c) The problem with this from the Seifa 'Yatza Rubo, Yikaver' is that, according to Rav Huna - the Tana should rather have taught us the Din in a case where the Bechor was cut up into limbs and left in a pile.

(d) Rav Huna will explain - that the Seifa is indeed in such a case, and what the Tana means is that if it is cut up and put into a pile, then it is as if the majority of the Bechor had emerged in one go.

(a) Rava asks whether we go after the Rov with regard to Evarim, to consider the Bechor born or not. We suggest that he is speaking about a case where the majority of the animal that emerged includes the minority of a limb (the majority of which remained inside the mother), in which case the She'eilah will be - whether the minority of the limb complements the half animal that emerged to make up a Rov, or does it go after its own Rov, in which case it is considered unborn and will not combine with the half animal that emerged before it.

(b) We reject this suggestion however - on the grounds that it is obvious that the section of limb will combine with the bulk of the animal rather than with its own remainder.

(c) The case is therefore where half the Bechor emerged including the majority of one limb, and the She'eilah is - whether the remainder of that limb is considered born, to complement the Rov or not.

(d) It is permitted to cut off part of a Bechor and feed it the dogs (as we already learned in our Mishnah) - because as long as the majority has not yet been born, it has no Kedushah, and the Isur of making a blemish on Kodshim does not apply to it (see also Tosfos DH 'Mai La'av').

(a) We try to resolve Rava's She'eilah from our Mishnah 'Yatza Rubo, Harei Zeh Yikaver' which cannot be taken literally - because we do not need our Mishnah to teach us the principle of 'Rubo ke'Kulo'.

(b) The Chidush cannot be that 'Mechatech u'Meni'ach Na'aseh ke'Mi she'Yatzta Rubo' (like we explained above according to Rav Huna) - because we only answered that in order to reconcile the Mishnah with Rav Huna, but strictly speaking, that is not what the Mishnah means (see Tif'eres Ya'akov).

(c) We therefore suggest that the Tana is speaking in Rava's case, and he is coming to teach us that we consider the minority of the limb that remained inside, born, resolving Rava's She'eilah. We reject this suggestion however - on the grounds that he might be speaking about the case that we just took for granted (where the majority of the animal that emerged includes the minority of a limb (the majority of which remained inside the mother), and the Tana is coming to teach us that the minority of that limb combines with the half animal rather than with its own majority.

(a) Rava asks whether, if the Bechor emerged from the womb, but after the midwife wrapped him in a creeper from a date-palm (or in a shawl [Rashi does not seem to have this in his text]). Rava's She'eilah is - whether, even though the baby emerges from the womb (and not via a cut in the stomach) the creeper is not considered a Chatzitzah, and it is considered a 'Yotzei Dofen' (a Bechor that is not born via the womb) and is not therefore considered a Bechor.

(b) He then asks what the Din will be if it is wrapped in its placenta, which we establish by the placenta of another baby and not its own - because since it is natural for a baby to be wrapped in its own placenta, it is obvious that it is not considered a Chatzitzah.

(c) Rava finds it necessary to ask this She'eilah - on the assumption that in the previous one, the creeper (which is not natural) is in fact, a Chatzitzah.

(d) He then asks whether, if a woman (the owner of the animal [see also Tosfos DH 'Korchaso') holds the baby to assist in its birth, it is considered a Chatzitzah. Perhaps it is not (because it is normal for a woman to do this, in which case it may not be considered a Chatzitzah. Presumably, this She'eilah assumes that in the previous case, it is not considered a Chatzitzah]).

(e) We establish all the She'eilos when the Bechor emerged from the womb backwards - because if the head emerged first, the baby would be declared a Bechor, irrespective of what happened afterwards.

(a) Rava then asks what the Din will be if, whilst it is still inside its mother's womb, a weasel swallowed it, and extracted it from the womb. We reject the She'eilah the way it stands however - because then there is no reason why it should not be a Chatzitzah.

(b) So we establish it - when the weasel did indeed swallow the Bechor and extract it, but it then returned it into the mother's womb and vomited it there. And the She'eilah is - since the fetus was at one stage Patur from the Bechorah, can it become Chayav again (when it emerges from the womb the second time).

(c) And finally, Rava asks what the Din will be if someone holds the mother's womb next to the womb of another animal, and the fetus moves from one to the other. The She'eilah now is - whether the second animal is not Patur from the Bechorah, when it subsequently gives birth to its own Bechor (since its womb was already opened to give birth to the first animal's Bechor).

(d) The outcome of Rava's She'eilos is - Teiku.

(a) Rav Acha asks whether the Bechor has a Din Bechor, if the walls of the womb stretched and it was born without touching them. He is not sure whether - the criterion is the air of the womb (which there was) or touching its walls (which it did not).

(b) When Mar bar Rav Ashi asks whether a Bechor becomes Kadosh if it is born from its mother's womb which is torn out (which obviously cannot be taken literally), he means - that it was moved back from its natural location, and the She'eilah is whether the womb sanctifies a Bechor which emerges from it, when it is not its regular location.

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira what the Din with regard to 'Nigmemu Koslei Beis ha'Rechem'. The She'eilah, assuming that 'Nigmemu means that the inner ...

1. ... part of the thickness of the walls of the womb has been removed, is - whether it will suffice for the Bechor to touch the remaining thickness of the wall (which under normal circumstances, it does not get to touch) in order to adopt Kedushas ha'Bechor.
2. ... section of the womb has been removed is - whether it will suffice for the Bechor to touch outer section of the womb.

(b) Rebbi Zeira's reaction to Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah was - that he could learn the answer to it via a She'eilah that he himself once asked (some say from Rebbi Asi).

(c) Rebbi Zeira asked two She'eilos. One where the major section of the womb was still intact, and that is where the baby was born. The other - where the major section of the womb is broken, but where the baby was born via the part that was still intact.

(d) Rebbi Zeira concluded - that at least in the She'eilos that he asked, part of the womb is still intact. But if part of the womb is actually missing (as is the case in Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah), the Bechor is definitely not Kadosh.

8)

(a) Our Mishnah rules that if a shepherd places his hand inside the stomach of a Kasher animal and touches the dead Ubar that lying inside it - he remains Tahor.

(b) The Tana Kama extends this Din to a Tamei animal. Rebbi Yossi Hagelili however - declares the shepherd Tamei there.

(c) The Tana Kama learns his ruling from a 'Kal va'Chomer' - if the mother permits the baby to be eaten (through its Shechitah) then it certainly ought to save it from Tum'as Neveilah.

(d) And it might also be based on the principle - of 'Tum'ah Belu'ah (where the source of Tum'ah is hidden inside a body [though Rebbi Akiva does not agree with that]).

(a) The Pasuk writes "ve'Chi Yamus min ha'Beheimah Asher Hi Lachem le'Ochlah". "Asher Hi Lachem le'Ochlah" refers to Kasher animals, and "ve'Chi Yamus min ha'Beheimah" - to Tamei ones.

(b) The Tana Kama learns from this Hekesh - that just as a dead Ubar inside a Tahor animal is not Metamei, so too, is a dead Ubar inside a Tamei one not Metamei either.

(c) To explain Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, Rebbi Yitzchak learns from the Pasuk there "ve'Chol Holech al Kapav be'Chol Chayah ha'Holeches ... " - that whatever walks on paws (i.e. a Tamei animal) that is inside its mother, is Metamei.

(d) According to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, a dead ...

1. ... Kalut in the stomach of a cow is not Metamei - because whereas the Pasuk is referring to Mehalchei Kapav bi'Mehalchei Arba, this is a case of Arba bi'Mehalchei Shemoneh (seeing as it has cloven hooves).
2. ... cow in the stomach of a camel Metamei (even though it is not Mehalchei Kapav) - because we include it from the 'Vav' in "ve'Chol Holech al Kapav".
3. ... Kalut (which is also "Holech al Kapav) in the stomach of a Kelutah not Metamei - because, seeing as they are both Kasher, Rebbi Yossi Hagelili will concede to the 'Kal va'Chomer' of Rav Chisda in this case.

(e) We know that the latter case is not Metamei - because Rebbi Yossi Hagelili stated S'tam 'u'Tehorah Tahor'.

(a) Rav Achdevu'i bar Ami queries all this from a dead Chazir in the stomach of a Chazirta - which is Metamei, and which ought to be Tahor, seeing as it is a case of Holech al Shemonah be'Mehalchei Shemonah.

(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak therefore learns Rebbi Yossi Hagelili's ruling from the Pasuk "Nefesh ki Siga be'Chol Tamei O be'Nivlas Chayah Teme'ah O be'Nivlas Beheimah Teme'ah O be'Nivlas Sheretz Tamei". The problem with the words "Beheimah Teme'ah" is - that seeing as the Pasuk is talking about a Neveilah, what difference does it make whether it is a Tamei animal or a Kasher one?

(c) He therefore establishes the Pasuk - by a dead Ubar inside a live animal, which is Tamei if it is inside a Tamei animal, but Tahor inside a Kasher one, like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili.

(d) Even though we learn this from Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, we still need Rebbi Yitzchak's D'rashah ("ve'Chol Holech al Kapav") without which we would use "Beheimah Teme'ah" solely for the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that Rebbi (on the next Amud) will learn from it, because Beheimah is already included in Chayah.

(a) Rebbi Yonasan commented to ben Azai that even though we have explicit Pesukim to teach us that the Neveilos of a Beheimah Tehorah, a Beheimah Teme'ah and a Chayah Teme'ah are Metamei - there is no such Pasuk to teach us this with regard to the Neveilah of a Chayah Teme'ah.

(b) He refuted ben Azai's reply, when he quoted the Pasuk "Kol Holech al Kapav, be'Chol ha'Chayah ha'Holeches ... ha'Noge'a be'Nivlasah, Yitma", on the grounds - that this Pasuk is referring to a dead Ubar in the stomach of a Tamei animal (as we learned earlier, and as is implied in the 'Beis' of "be'Chol Chayah").

(c) When ben Azai asked Rebbi Yonasan reply what Rebbi Yishmael said in this regard, he replied - with the principle that Chayah is included in Beheimah. Consequently, since the Neveilah of a Beheimah Tehorah is Metamei, so is that of a Chayah Tehorah.

(d) Rebbi Yonasan also cited Rebbi Yishmael as saying - that Beheimah is included in Chayah (where it is needed). And he went on to elaborate: 'Chayah Tehorah is included in Beheimah Tehorah, and Chayah Teme'ah in Beheimah Teme'ah, Beheimah Teme'ah is included in Chayah Teme'ah and Beheimah Tehorah in Chayah Tehorah'.

(e) When ben Azai heard this from Rebbi Yonasan, he lamented - 'What a pity, ben Azai, that you did not learn by Rebbi Yishmael'.