Previous daf

1)

(a) When 'Reuven' told 'Shimon' that had he made up with him, he would have given him a piece of meat from the fat ox that he had Shechted on the previous day - the latter replied that he had indeed tasted some of that meat, having received it from a Nochri who had purchased it from Reuven.

(b) Reuven's response to that was - that he had actually Shechted two animals, and that he had been referring to the one that was Kasher, and not to the one that he had sold to the Nochri, which was a Tereifah.

(c) Rebbi commented on this incident - that it is not because of that fool (who sold a Tereifah animal to a Nochri to sell in his butchery), that he would declare Asur the meat in all the butcheries.

(d) We explain that Rebbi follows his own reasoning, that in a town where the majority of Shochtim and of butcheries are Jewish - meat that is found in the hand of a Nochri is permitted.

(a) According the second Lashon, he explained that he would not forbid all the meat in the butcheries that day - on account of that fool who set out to hurt his friend (by lying to him that he had sold the Tereifah meat that his friend subsequently bought ...

(b) ... from which we can infer - that had he claimed to be telling the truth, we would have believed him, and forbidden all the meat that day.

(c) And we reconcile this with Rebbi's previous ruling, where he permits all the meat in a town where the majority of the Shochtim and the butchers are Jewish - by establishing the latter where we are not aware of a Tereifah, but there where as are (and what's more, the owner even went and sold it to a Nochri, and perhaps even to more than one), we will all the meat in the Nochri butcheries.

(a) Rav renders Asur, meat that was out of sight for a short while ('Basar she'Nis'alem min ha'Ayin') - for fear that it was exchanged for Neveilah.

(b) This Isur applies - even to meat that one leaves in one's house.

(c) We reconcile Rav's ruling with Rebbi's previous statement, permitting meat that is found in the hands of a Nochri - by differentiating between meat that is under the jurisdiction of a Nochri (in circumstances where we know for sure that it is not Tereifah, as we explained), and meat that is lying unguarded, and which may have been exchanged by a raven.

(a) In a town that has nine Kasher butcheries and one Tereifah one, the Beraisa forbids a piece of meat that one purchases from a butchery, and cannot recall from which one he purchased it. We do not go after the majority of butcheries - because of the principle (which we learn in Kesuvos from a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv') 'Kol Kavu'a ke'Mechtzah al Mechtzah' (a Safek that begins in the actual location which might be the Isur is considered a balanced Safek [fifty-fifty]).

(b) The Tana will permit the piece of meat however - if it is found in the street (i.e. not in any of the butcheries), since the Safek did not begin in the area which might be the Isur ('Kol de'Parish, me'Ruba Parish').

(c) In the latter case, the Tana did not forbid it because of 'Basar she'Nis'alem min ha'Ayin' - due to the fact that he is speaking when it is found in the hands of a Nochri (who might have purchased it from any of the butcheries).

(a) The Mishnah in Machshirin - permits a piece of raw meat that one finds in a town which boasts a majority of Kasher butcheries.

(b) But in a case where the meat is cooked - the Tana goes after the majority of people who eat cooked meat.

(c) The problem with establishing the Reisha of the Mishnah where the meat was found in the hands of a Nochri (in order to accommodate Rav) is - why in the Seifa, the Tana then goes after the majority of meat-eaters, and not after the person who is holding it.

(d) So, in order to accommodate Rav, we establish both the Reisha and the Seifa where - the finder actually saw someone drop the meat (without knowing whether he was a Yisrael or a Nochri), and kept his eyes on it until he picked it up.

(a) The Mishnah in Shekalim discusses Basar that one finds outside the Beis Hamikdash. The Tana rules there that where one finds ...

1. ... whole limbs - they are forbidden (because people tend to cut up their Neveilos like that and throw them into the trash-heap).
2. ... limbs that have been cut into pieces (assuming that the majority of Shochtim are Jewish) - they are permitted.

(b) To accommodate Rav, we cannot establish the Seifa of this Mishnah too, when the finder saw the person drop them ... - because then, why would the Tana forbid the limbs in the Reisha?

(c) So we resolve the Kashya on Rav by quoting Rav's own interpretation of the Mishnah. Levi interprets 'Chatichos Mutaros' literally, to mean 'Mutaros ba'Achilah'. But Rav interprets it to mean - that they are permitted as far as Tum'as Neveilos is concerned, but are nevertheless forbidden to eat (because of Basar she'Nis'alem min ha'Ayin').

(d) The ramifications of 'Mutaros Mishum Neveilos' are - that they are not Metamei mi'Safek and that, by the same token, one does receive Malkos for eating them.

7)

(a) Rav, sitting on a bridge of the River Ishtatis, observed a man - washing the head of an animal.

(b) When the head fell into the water, the man - fetched a basket and proceeded to drag the river to try and recover it. The next thing he knew, he had retrieved, not one head, but two.

(c) After exclaiming his surprise - Rav forbade the two heads.

(d) When Rav Kahana and Rav Asi asked him whether the second head was just as likely to have been Heter as Isur - he replied that in fact, the Isur was more common than the Heter.

(a) We try to prove from the above episode - that Rav holds 'Basar she'Nis'alem min ha'Ayin Asur' (for which we have no other source [even when the odds are equal]).

(b) There is no clear proof from there that Rav holds Basar she'Nis'alem min ha'Ayin is Asur - because of the possibility that he only forbade it because it happened to be the location of a Nochri port, where most of the meat is Tereifah ...

(c) ... as is borne out by his reply to Rav Kahana and Rav Asi (that the Isur was more common than the Heter).

(d) The problem with Rav's principle is - how Rav would then eat meat (which presumably, we assume he did because it is a Mitzvah to eat meat on Yom-Tov, as we learned in 'Kisuy ha'Dam').

(a) We initially answer that Rav would only eat meat immediately after the animal was Shechted. We then add, that besides the option of wrapping and sealing the meat - he might also have made a Si'man on it ...

(b) ... like Rabah bar Rav Huna, who would mark his meat - by cutting it in a triangular shape, so that the members of his household would not steal it (see Hagahos ha'Bach).

(a) When, on his way to Rav Chanan, his son-in-law, Rav saw the ferry-boat coming towards him - he declared that it was a good sign for the ferry to be coming towards him without his even having ordered it, adding that there would be a Yom-Tov in his house that night.

(b) When, upon arriving home, he peeped through a crack in the door - he spied a suspended carcass.

(c) And when he knocked at the door - everybody got up from the party that was in progress (as we shall soon see), and came to greet him, including the Shochtim ...

(d) ... to whom he remarked - that by not keeping an eye on the carcass, they all but fed his family something that is Asur.

(a) Rav did not eat from that carcass. It cannot have been ...

1. ... on account of Basar she'Nis'alem min ha'Ayin - since he had kept his eye on it throughout the time that everybody else came to greet him.
2. ... as a penalty for having divined, adding that would be a Yom-Tov in his house that night - because since his divining had no consequence, it is not forbidden (as we shall now see).

(b) This is based on a statement of Rav, who said - that any Nichush that is not like that of Eliezer Eved Avraham and Yonasan ben Shaul (which resulted in a firm decision to act), is not called Nichush (see Tosfos DH).

(c) The Nichush of ...

1. ... Eliezer Eved Avraham was - that if Rivkah would offer to water the camels, he would speak to her about the Shiduch, and if not, he wouldn't.
2. ... Yonasan ben Shaul was - that if the P'lishtim would invite him and his armor-bearer to 'come up to them', they would attack them, and if not, they wouldn't.

(d) We conclude that Rav declined to eat from that animal, because it was being served at a Se'udas ha'Reshus - the marriage of the daughter of a Talmid-Chacham to an Am-ha'Aretz, and Rav tended not to eat at a Se'udas Reshus.

(a) When we say that ...

1. ... Rav used to 'gauge with a ferry', we mean - that he would assess whether or not, to set out on a mission, by according to how difficult it was to order a ferry-boat (if he had great difficulty in obtaining one, then he would cancel his trip [see also Rabeinu Gershom]).
2. ... Shmuel used to gauge with a Sefer - we mean that he would open a Seifer and see what the Pesukim on the page that he opened had to say (by way of hint) about his forthcoming trip, and decide to go or cancel the trip accordingly.
3. ... Rebbi Yochanan used to gauge with children, we mean - that he would ask them to quote him their Pasuk (see Eitz Yosef in connection with Rav, Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan).

(b) When Rebbi Yochanan would write to Rav in his lifetime, he would address his letters to 'our Rebbe in Bavel'. After Rav's death, he would initially address his letters to Shmuel - with 'our colleague in Bavel'.

(c) When Shmuel sent Rebbi Yochanan ...

1. ... a list of leap years over the next fifty years - (to prove that there were areas of knowledge where he was Rebbi Yochanan's superior) - the latter responded by appraising Shmuel as a mathematician (and no more).
2. ... thirteen camels laden with She'eilos concerning Tereifos - he acknowledged that he had a Rebbe in Bavel.

(d) Rebbi then decided to go and see Shmuel - because he wanted to go and see his Rebbe (as the Pasuk writes in Yeshayah "Ve'hayu Einecha Ro'os es Mor'echa").

(a) When, on his way to visit Shmuel, Rebbi Yochanan asked a child to recite his Pasuk, he cited the Pasuk in Shmuel "u'Sh'muel Meis".

(b) In fact, Sh'muel had not really died, and the reason that they showed Rebbi Yochanan that Pasuk was - to spare him the trouble of going all the way to Bavel (presumably because, in fact, Rebbi Yochanan was greater than Shmuel).

(c) When Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar said in a Beraisa ...

1. ... 'Bayis, Tinok ve'Ishah ... Yesh Siman', he meant - that one may view any success that follows the purchase of a house, the birth of a child or marriage, as a good sign.
2. ... 'Af-al-Pi she'Ein Nichush' - though determining his future actions though the basis of any of them, is forbidden.

(d) Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das) proved from the Pasuk "Yosef Einenu, ve'Shimon Einenu ve'es Binyamin Tikachu, Alai Hayu Kulanah" - that it is only a Siman if it is one of three things that occur, for so Ya'akov said ...

(e) ... 'Yosef is no longer, and Shimon is no longer, and if you will now take Binyamin, then there is no Tzarah that will not befall me'.

(a) When Rav Huna asked Rav whether meat on a string is a Siman to negate the Isur of Basar she'Nis'alem min ha'Ayin or not - he replied that it was.

(b) With his opening words '*Al T'hi Shoteh* ba'Charuzin ... ', he meant - that he should not be silly, because of course it is a Siman (see Tosfos DH 'be'Charuzin').

(c) Others quote the ruling - in the name of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav (and not in question and answer form).

(d) Rav Nachman from Neherda'a had just arrived in Pum Nahara one Erev Yom Kipur at the home of Rav Kahana, when he saw ravens drop livers and kidneys at a certain spot. Rav Kahana permit him to eat them - because most of the local butchers were Jewish.

(a) Rav Chiya bar Avin lost some Kark'sha (great intestines) among the barrels of wine. Rav Huna permitted it when the owner later found it, even though he did not have a Siman by which to identify it - on the basis of 'Tevi'as Ayin' (recognition).

(b) Likewise, Rav Nachman and Rav Chisda permitted a large chunk of meat and a ball of Techeiles to Rav Chanina Chuza'a and Rav Nasan bar Abaye, respectively, when they lost and subsequently found them. Rav Huna follows the ruling of his Rebbe, Rav who on principle, forbids Basar she'Nis'alem min ha'Ayin (and Rav Nachman and Rav Chisda too, agrees with that). We nevertheless permit Basar she'Nis'alem min ha'Ayin (in spite of Rav) - because it clashes with the Mishnah in Machshirin ('Matza bah Basar Halach Achar Rov Basar' as we discussed on the previous Amud [and the answer that we gave there, 'be'Omed ve'Ro'ehu', is a Dochek).

(c) Rav Kahana too, whom we just quoted - disagrees with Rav.

(d) As for the principle 'Hilch'sa ke'Rav' - that only applies to where he argues with Shmuel, but not where he clashes with a Mishnah (even though he has the status of a Tana).