Previous daf

1)

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that 'Elel' combines to be Metamei Tum'as Ochlin. According to Rebbi Yochanan, 'Elel' is the Gid of the spine and the neck (known as the cervical ligament [see also Tosfos DH 'Mart's') - which is wide, white and extremely hard.

(b) According to Resh Lakish - it is the bit of flesh which the butcher sometimes cuts away from the animal together with the skin whilst flaying it.

(c) The Pasuk in Iyov "ve'Ulam Atem Toflei Sheker Rof'ei Elil Kulchem" implies - that Elel is flesh that cannot be cured once it is cut, a Kashya on Resh Lakish, since flesh that one cuts away from an animal sometimes re-grows after it has been tied back in place (whereas a broken cervical ligament does not heal).

(d) To resolve the discrepancy between the Pasuk and Resh Lakish's interpretation of our Mishnah - we conclude that Resh Lakish concedes that the Pasuk is referring to the cervical ligament, and that he is arguing with Rebbi Yochanan over the Tana's interpretation of the word.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah gives Elel that one gathered to one place the Din of Neveilah, provided there it constitutes a k'Zayis. The Tana Kama specifically said 'Aval Lo Tum'as Neveilos' - and that is precisely their bone of contention.

(b) Seeing as Rebbi Yehudah's reason is because gathering it to one place is a declaration of Chashivus, he will concede that even a k'Zayis Elel in one place is not Metamei - there where it was gathered unintentionally (e.g. children collected it).

(c) Rebbi Yehudah cannot be referring to the Gid ha'Shedrah - since it is no more an Ochel than a piece of wood, in which case the fact that there is a k'Zayis of it in one place will not make any difference.

(d) In fact, we therefore conclude - Rebbi Yochanan agrees with Resh Lakish's interpretation of Elel, which is exactly what Rebbi Yehudah is talking about. Only he maintains that it also incorporates 'Mart's'.

(a) The problem with Elel if it means 'Basar she'Paltaso Sakin' is that 'Mah Nafshach', if one ...

1. ... had in mind to eat it - then why does it require Tziruf, seeing as Machshavah helps to render something that is not edible into a food (as we learned in 'Beheimah ha'Maksheh').
2. ... did not have in mind to eat it - then it ought to be Bateil, so why is it Metzaref).

(b) Rebbi Avin and Rebbi Meisha argue over this point. One of them establishes our Mishnah in a case where someone thought about part of it, and part of it he didn't - without specifying which part he had in mind to eat. His Machshavah on the one part reveals that he did not intend to be Mevateil the other half either, and they will combine to make up a k'Beitzah of Tum'as Ochlin (see Maharshal).

(c) The other one establishes our Mishnah when part of it was bitten by a Chayah, and part of it was cut away by a knife - so that the two combined pa rts were left attached to the skin. Here too, they did not know which part was which, but in this case, there was no Machshavah and the part that was bitten off by the Chayah is not Bateil, whilst the other part is. If the whole piece now combines with Basar, that part bitten off by the Chayah will combine to make up a Shi'ur k'Beitzah of Tum'as Ochlin.

(a) The Mishnah in Taharos rules - that the beak and the claws of a bird receive Tum'ah, are Metamei others and combine to make up the Shi'ur Tum'ah k'Beitzah of food.

(b) Assuming that the Tana is talking about a Nivlas ha'Of, it is not Tamei anyway - because a Nivlas Of Tahor is only Metamei when one eats it, whilst the Tana is talking about Tum'ah through touching it.

(c) The problem with this is - that the beak is stone-hard, and not fit to eat (so on what grounds is it considered an Ochel)?

(d) Rebbi Elazar establishes it by the lower beak. Bearing in mind that the lower beak is as hard as the upper one, Rav Papa amends that to - the lower section of the upper beak (comprising a thin strip of flesh that is attached to the beak along its entire length.

(e) And ...

1. ... Rebbi Elazar interprets the claws (which are hard too) - as the point where they become absorbed in the flesh (where they become soft.
2. ... Rav Papa establishes the horns referred to in our Mishnah as - the end part of the horn, which produces blood when it is cut.

(a) With reference to our Mishnah, 'ha'Shochet Beheimah Temei'ah le'Nochri, u'Mefarcheses, Metamei Tum'as Ochlin', the Tana'im (cited by Rebbi Asi) say - that besides Machshavah, to render that animal susceptible to Tum'ah, it also needs Hechsher.

(b) Machshavah will also help, even though the animal may not in fact, be eaten - in a case where it was a Nochri who performed the Shechitah on behalf of a Yisrael, since there the animal would be permitted to the Yisrael, if a Yisrael had Shechted it.

(c) If however ...

1. ... a Yisrael were to Shecht a Beheimah Tehorah, which is still convulsing - it would not require a specific Machshavah to render the Basar, Ochel.
2. ... a Nochri were to Shecht a Beheimah Temei'ah - then Machshavah would not even help to render it an Ochel.

(d) We reconcile our Mishnah (which permits a Yisrael to eat an animal that is still convulsing) with the ruling in Sanhedrin prohibiting eating part of an animal before it is completely dead - by attributing the latter to a Rabbinical decree, whereas min ha'Torah, it is fit to eat.

(a) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns from the Pasuk (in connection with Hechsher Lekabeil Tum'ah) "ve'Chi Yutan Mayim al Zera" - that whatever, like seeds, is not eligible to adopt a Tum'ah Chamurah (i.e. something which, through contact with a Meis, become an Av ha'Tum'ah, and which can therefore be Metamei even Adam ve'Keilim [and not just Ochel u'Mashkeh]).

(b) What determines that something cannot become an Av ha'Tum'ah, even through contact with a Meis is - the fact that it cannot be Toveled in a Mikvah (as we learn from Pesukim in Chukas).

(c) Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa rules that a Nivlas Of Tahor requires Machchavah, before it can adopt Tum'as Ochel - but not Hechsher, seeing as it stands to be Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah (i.e. if someone eats it).

(d) The problem this poses on the Tana'im cited by Rebbi Asi is - that seeing as once the Beheimah in question stops convulsing, it stands to be Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah, why does it require a Hechsher ... ?

(e) Chizkiyah answers - that in fact, it is theoretically possible to prevent the animal from becoming Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah, by cutting off one strip at a time that is less than a k'Zayis, and feeding it to the dogs (see Tosfos DH 'Ho'il') before it ceases convulsing.

7)

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah queries Chizkiyah from another ruling of his. In a case where, after Shechitah, an animal is still convulsing, Chizkiyah says that a ben No'ach will not be punished for eating Eiver min ha'Chai. Rebbi Yochanan holds - that he will.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan will concede to Chizkiyah that in the equivalent case, but by a Beheimah Tehorah, the Nochri is not Chayav - because of the principle that whatever is permitted to a Yisrael cannot be forbidden to a Nochri.

(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked that if, as Chizkiyah says, a Mefarcheses vis-a-vis a Nochri is not a Chai, then it must be a Neveilah - a Kashya on his previous statement, which holds that it is not?

(d) Rebbi Zeira reconciled both of Chizkiyah's statements - by rejecting Rebbi Yirmiyah's inference in his second statement. In fact, he answers, Chizkiyah considers a Mefarcheses to be in limbo, no longer a Chai, but not yet a Meis.

(a) Rebbi Elazar cites Rav Oshaya's Beraisa in support of Rebbi Yochanan. The Tana rules that in a case where a Yisrael has Shechted Shenayim or Rov Shenayim of a Beheimah Temei'ah that is still convulsing ...

1. ... it is 'Metamei Tum'as Ochlin'.
2. ... it is not 'Metamei Tum'as Neveilos'.

(b) The Tana rules that an Eiver or Basar that is detached from it - is as if it was detached from a live animal. Both are therefore forbidden to a Nochri, even after the animal has died.

(c) It is the latter ruling of the Beraisa - which conforms with Rebbi Yochanan (in his ruling 'Yeshnah le'Eivarim').

(a) The Tana rules, regarding the same Tamei animal, where the Yisrael ...

1. ... Shechted one Siman or Rov of one Siman - that the animal is not Metamei Tum'as Ochlin (seeing as we do not find any Heter Achilah in such a case).
2. ... performed Nechirah on it - that it is not Metamei at all ...

(b) ... and the same applies to a case where a Nochri performed the Shechitah or the Nechirah on behalf of a Yisrael, and not vice-versa, the Tana rules.

(c) If however, the Nochri Shechted Shenayim or Rov Shenayim on behalf of a Yisrael, the Beraisa rules that it is Tamei Tum'as Ochlin but not Tum'as Neveilos - and a Nochri is forbidden to eat an Eiver or Basar that is detached from it even after the animal dies (since on the one hand it is Eiver or Basar min ha'Chai, and on the other, a Yisrael is not permitted to eat it).

(d) The Beraisa also says that in a case where ...

1. ... the Nochri Shechted half the Kaneh of a Beheimah Tehorah (which does not render the animal a Tereifah), and a Yisrael came and completed the Shechitah - the Shechitah is Kasher.
2. ... a Yisrael began the Shechitah (irrespective of whether it was a place which rendered the animal a Tereifah or not) and a Nochri completed it - the Shechitah is Pasul.

(a) Finally, the Tana instructs someone who wishes to eat a piece of meat that has been cut from an animal before it actually died - to salt it very well and to rinse it very well.

(b) It is obvious why it needs to be rinsed particularly well. And the reason that it requires a more thorough salting than other meat is - because the animal was not given the chance to release the excessive blood with its last gasp, with the result that when cutting of the piece, some of that blood became absorbed in the limb.

(c) He is permitted to eat it - only after the animal died ...

(d) ... and, based on the principle that whatever is permitted to a Yisrael, is permitted to a Nochri too - so is a Nochri, as we already learned.

(a) The Tana's last statement supports Rav Idi bar Avin Amar Rebbi Yitzchak bar Ashi'an, who, besides reiterating what the Beraisa says - adds that cutting off a k'Zayis of meat from the Beis ha'Shechitah is healthy (cure for various illnesses).

(b) Rebbi Elazar asked - what the Din will be if the Yisrael, in the course of Shechting the Beheimah Temei'ah, or the Nochri, the Beheimah Tehorah, performed Shehiyah of D'rasah - whether it is considered a Shechutah or a Nechurah.

(c) That old man extrapolated from Rebbi Yochanan, who said that the Shechitah requires Hechsher just like a regular Shechitah - that if anything goes wrong with it (such as Shehiyah or D'rasah), it is invalid, thereby resolving Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah.

(d) We refute his proof however, by citing Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak, who explains Rebbi Yochanan to mean - that it requires an inspection of the knife.

(a) When Rebbi Zeira asked Rav Sheishes whether the same animal saves absorbed Keilim from Tum'ah, he meant to ask - whether it has the Din of a live animal, which saves Keilim that it has swallowed from Tum'as Ohel (as we learned in 'Beheimah ha'Maksheh'), or not.

(b) When the latter replied 'Metam'in Tum'as Ochlin, u'Matzeles?!', the former retorted - (on the contrary) 'Einah Metamei Tum'as Neveilos, ve'Lo Tatzil?!'

(c) Abaye adopted the ruling of Rav Sheishes (which considers the animal dead) - but continued - 've'ha'Rov'ah Chayav' (sentencing someone who performs bestiality with it is Chayav Misah', an indication that it is alive).

(d) Abaye really holds - that the animal is alive, and he only rules that the animal does not save the Keilim that it has swallowed, le'Chumra (see Tosfos DH 'Abaye Amar').

(a) Rav Huna qualifies Rebbi Yehudah's ruling regarding Elel ha'Mechunas, confining it to where the butcher gathered the k'Zayis intentionally. Even Rebbi Yehudah will agree however, that one is not Chayav because of Neveilah - if for example little children gathered it ...

(b) ... because once the skin has been flayed together with bits of flesh attached here and there, they become Bateil, and no longer have the status of Basar.

(c) We learned in 'Beheimah ha'Maksheh' 'Or she'Shalko, Metamei Tum'as Ochlin' - because it is possible to render skin a food by one's actions, but one cannot turn it into Basar (which is subject to the Isur of Neveilah, but not skin).