Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Ula, the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Shimon (regarding 'Nosen 'Ta'am li'Fegam') is confined to where the food first improved, before becoming spoiled. In a case where the food became spoiled immediately - even Rebbi Meir would concede that 'Nosen Ta'am li'Fegam Mutar'.

(b) In respect of a case where wine fell into a lentil stew and vinegar into G'risin, Rebbi Meir (the Tana Kama of the Beraisa) - forbids the stew, and Rebbi Shimon - permits it.

(c) Rav Chaga queries Ula from there - inasmuch as Rebbi Meir forbids the stew, despite the fact that it is a case of 'Pogem Me'ikara'.

(d) Ula accused Rav Chaga of not understanding the Beraisa, which, according to him - speaks when the Isurim fell into the stew when it was cold, and was heated only afterwards.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Ula. According to him, Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Shimon argue by 'Pogem Me'ikara'. We ask however - whether Rebbi Yochanan means to say that they argue specifically by 'Pogem Me'ikara' (but agree in a case of 'Hishbi'ach ve'li'be'Sof Pagam'), or whether they argue *also* by 'Pogem Me'ikara' (as well as by 'Hishbi'ach ve'li'be'Sof Pagam').

(b) This She'eilah remains - unresolved.

(c) Rav Amram declared that - Rebbi Yochanan's statement must be contained in a Mishnah.

(a) The Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Orlah states that if first a Chulin yeast and then a yeast of Terumah or of K'lai ha'Kerem (both of which could have caused the dough to rise), fall into a Chulin dough - the dough is forbidden (to Zarim or to anybody respectively).

(b) Rebbi Shimon permits it - because it is 'Nosen Ta'am li'Fegam' (seeing as it rises too much and becomes too doughy).

(c) Rav Amram tries to prove from here - that Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Shimon argue by 'Pogem Me'ikara'.

(d) Rebbi Zeira refutes Rav Amram's proof however, on the grounds - that it is specifically by dough that Rebbi Meir argues, due to the fact that the more it rises, the more it itself becomes eligible to make other doughs rise (but in other cases, he might well agree with Rebbi Shimon by 'Pogem Me'ikara').

(a) So we cite another Beraisa. In a case where a yeast of Terumah falls into a Chulin dough together with a Chulin yeast (both of which could have caused the dough to rise) - the Tana Kama forbids the dough.

(b) Rebbi Shimon - permits it.

(c) The Tana Kama rules in a case where the ...

1. ... Terumah yeast fell into the dough first - 'Asur'.
2. ... the Chulin yeast fell into the dough first - 'Asur'.

(d) Rebbi Shimon concedes that the dough is Asur in the earlier case (since it first improves the dough, before spoiling it), but permits it in the latter case.

(a) We can obviously explain the Seifa (which is a clear case of 'Pogem Me'ikara', yet they argue) like Rebbi Zeira. Nevertheless, we are citing this Beraisa - because of the Seifa, as we shall now see.

(b) In a case where wine fell into a lentil stew or vinegar into G'risin, the Tana Kama - forbids the stew, whereas Rebbi Shimon - permits it.

(c) We might attempt to answer the Kashya on Ula from this case, which appears to be 'Pogem Me'ikara', yet Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Shimon argue - by establishing it when the stew was initially cold, and was only heated after the Isur fell in ('ke'she'Hishbichah ve'li'be'Sof Pagmah', like Ula explained to Rav Chaga earlier).

(d) We finally reject Ula's opinion from the middle case of Terumah (where the Terumah yeast fell into the Chulin dough first) - from which we clearly see that Rebbi Shimon concedes that 'ke'she'Hishbichah ve'li'be'Sof Pagmah', it is Asur, in which case they must be arguing by 'Pogem Me'ikara'. Note, that this also resolves our She'eilah regarding what Rebbi Yochanan will hold by 'ke'she'Hishbichah ve'li'be'Sof Pagmah', which has been unresolved until now.

6)

(a) Our current Beraisa presented three cases (when the Terumah and Chulin yeasts fell into the Chulin dough simultaneously, when the Terumah yeast fell in first, and when Isur wine fell into lentils. The Chidush in ...

1. ... the last case is - that Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Shimon argue by 'Pogem me'Ikara'.
2. ... the middle case is - that Rebbi Shimon concedes to Rebbi Meir that 'Mashbi'ach ve'li'be'Sof Pogem' is Asur.

(b) The problem with the Tana's insertion of the first case is - that once we learn the Seifa (that the Tana'im argue even where the mixture does not improve at all), the Reisha (where it does) seems superfluous.

(c) Abaye solves the problem by establishing the Chidush according to Rebi Shimon. The Rabbanan said to Rebbi Shimon - that seeing as, thanks to the Isur yeast, the dough rose in one hour instead of two, why is it not a case of 'Hishbi'ach ve'li'be'Sof Pagmo' (which he agrees is Asur) ...

(d) ... to which he replied - that seeing as the Heter worked together with the Isur, to improve the dough as well as to spoil it, he considers it 'Pagmo Me'ikara'.

(a) Rebbi Shimon does not forbid the dough anyway, because of the principle 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur' (the Heter combines with the Isur, making it a case of 'Mashbi'ach ve'li'be'Sof Pogem', even according to him - because he holds that even Isurim never combine (how much more so Isur and Heter).

(b) This is based on a Mishnah in Orlah. The Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Orlah rules that if half a Shiur of Orlah plus half a Shiur of K'lai ha'Kerem fall into Heter - they combine to render the Heter, Asur.

(c) The Shiur of both Orlah and K'lai ha'Kerem is at least one in two hundred.

(d) Rebbi Shimon says - 'Ein Mitztarfin'.

(a) In a case where a mouse fell into barrel of beer - Rav forbade the beer.

(b) The Rabbanan's problem with this ruling was - that Rav seemed to hold 'Nosen Ta'am li'Fegam Asur' (whereas we have taken for granted all along that it is Mutar).

(c) In fact, Rav Sheishes told them, Rav holds 'Nosen Ta'am li'Fegam Mutar' - and he forbade the beer - because the fact that the Torah finds it necessary to forbid the mouse itself (despite the fact that it is disgusting to begin with) is a Chidush (see also Tosfos DH 'de'Ha Mam'isa'). Consequently, 'Nosen Ta'am li'Fegam' is Asur, too.

(d) If the Din of Sheretz is a Chidush, the Rabbanan ask Rav Sheishes, it ought to render the one who touches it Tamei even when it is dry - whereas in fact, the Mishnah in Nidah writes 'Metam'in Lachin ve'Lo Yavesh'.

(a) Rav Sheishes countered by citing the same Mishnah - which actually includes Shichvas- Zera (semen) in the ruling.

(b) So he concludes that Tum'ah is different - by which he means that we cannot learn the Isur of Shichvas-Zera from its Tum'ah, because the Din by Tum'ah is a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' (as we shall now see).

(c) He infers this from the very word 'Shichvas-Zera' - which implies that it must be fit to fertilize.

(d) And he rounds off his D'rashah by citing the word "be'Mosam" (in connection with Sheratzim) - implying that they are only Metamei when they retain the state that they were in when they died (to preclude when they are dry).

(a) Rav Shimi from Neherda'a queried the entire concept that an 'Achbar' is disgusting (even to Nochrim) - from the fact that they are known to be served at the table of kings.

(b) He himself resolved the problem however, by differentiating between two kinds of 'Achbar', the one that is found in the house, and the one that is found outside ...

(c) ... which is the kind that appears on the table of kings (and which we call 'a squirrel').

(d) Rava finally rules 'Nosen Ta'am li'Fegam Mutar'. He is in two minds however, about Rav's stringent ruling with regard to the mouse in the barrel of beer. It might have been because he holds 'Nosen Ta'am li'Fegam Asur', in which case the Halachah is not like him. But it might also have been - because in his opinion, it actually enhances its taste (rather than spoil it, as we assumed until now).