Previous daf

1)

(a) Tana'im argue over whether food that is prepared in a Nochri's un-Kashered utensil, on the following day, is permitted or not. One Tana permits it - because it is 'Nosen Ta'am li'Fegam'.

(b) The Torah nevertheless requires Hag'alah - in order to use it on the same day.

(c) Utensils obtained from a Nochri are nevertheless not permitted Lechatchilah after the first day - because the Chachamim decreed (that one might come to use them on the first day).

(a) The second Tana forbids even Bedi'eved, utensils, even after the first day, in spite of 'Nosen Ta'am li'Fegam' - since in fact, the food is slightly spoiled already on the first day (as we learned earlier in the Perek), yet the Torah requires the vessels to be Kashered.

(b) The Mishnah in Zevachim rules - that a spit-rod and a grill of Kodshim require Hag'alah in boiling water.

(c) When Rav Amram asked from there on to our Mishnah, which requires Libun (in fire) - Rav Sheishes reacted by differentiating between Chulin, which absorbed what is forbidden ('Isura Bala') and Kodshim, which absorbed what is permitted ('Heteira Bala').

(a) Rabah disagreed with Rav Sheishes' differentiation - on the grounds that the Kodshim might have been Heter when it was absorbed, but by the time it is exuded, it has already become Asur (and is therefore considered to be 'Isura Bala'.

(b) So he interpreted the 'Hag'alah' in Zevachim as - rinsing and washing, which is a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' ...

(c) ... over and above the Libun that it requires anyway.

(d) Abaye objected to Rabah's interpretation of Hag'alah - inasmuch as Sh'tifah and Hadachah implies only cold water, where Hag'alah implies hot.

(a) To resolve the discrepancy, Abaye therefore explained 'Yagid Alav Rei'o', by which he meant - that Chulin requires Libun, as well as Hag'alah (which we learn from Kodshim), and Kodshim requires Hag'alah, as well as Libun (which we learn from Chulin).

(b) Kodshim utensils still require Sh'tifah ve'Hadachah - since they are based on a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv', irrespective of whatever else is done to them.

(c) Rava's objection to Abaye's explanation was - that at least one of the Mishnah's ought then to have mentioned both Libun and Hag'alah, allowing us to learn from it, that just as both methods are required there, so too, by the other one.

(a) So Rava cited Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah to explain the Mishnah in Zevachim. When Rav Nachman says 'Kol Yom ve'Yom Na'aseh Gi'ul la'Chavero', he means - that by the second day, when one cooks again in the utensil, whatever is absorbed in the walls of the vessel has become 'Nosen Ta'am li'Fegam' (before it has a chance to become Nosar).

(b) We agree with Rav Nachman with regard to the Korban Shelamim - for which the Torah allows two days to eat (and which has not therefore become Nosar by the second day). We query him however, from the Chatas - for which only has one day to eat (and which therefore become Nosar before the food becomes 'Nosen Ta'am li'Fegam').

(c) We can circumvent this problem however - by cooking the chest and the right calf of a Shelamim in the pot in which the Chatas was cooked (or rather, roasted) that day, and by then cooking another Shelamim on the next day, before the initial Shelamim has become Nosar (See Ritva).

(d) The (unanswerable) problem with this is - that if that is so, why do the Kodshim pots require Hag'alah at all?

(a) To explain the difference between Kodshim and Chulin, Rav Papa explains 'Hai Karid, Hai Lo Karid', by which he means - that even though by the time the pot exudes Kodshim, it has become Asur as we explained, nevertheless, Hag'alah will suffice, because, due to the fact that the utensils are in constant use, the Isur does not get a chance to penetrate as deeply as Chulin ones (which is why they require Libun).

(b) Rav Ashi accepts Rav Sheishes' initial answer (which considers Kodshim 'Heteira Bala'), and he refutes Rabah's objection ('Ki ka'Palit, Isura ka'Palit') - on the grounds that the Isur, which was invisible from the very first moment, is therefore weak, so we consider it 'Heteira Bala'.

(a)

1. Rav Mani defines the Shiur of Libun as - until one layer has been removed.
2. Rav Huna explains Hag'alah - as placing the small pot (that requires Kashering) inside a large one (containing boiling water), so that the water covers it.

(b) One makes Hag'alah on a large pot, according to Rav Ukva (or Rav Akavya) - by forming a rim of dough around its top outside edge and filling the pot itself to its very top with water.

(c) When Rava heard this, he exclaimed that only Rav Ukva, who was very wise, would have made such a statement - because it is based on the principle 'ke'Bol'o Kach Polto' (because the top surface of the pot absorbed splashing drops, and that's the way it is now being Kashered).

(d) The rim of dough around the edge is necessary - to ensure that drops splash everywhere. Otherwise, by boiling up water once, the chances are that parts of the top which absorbed 'T'reif', will not be affected by the drops this time.

8)

(a) Rav Ukva bar Chama rules that after having filed a knife - one has to stick it in hard earth ten times.

(b) Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua - requires virgin soil to be used for this procedure.

(c) This Halachah seems rather excessive (assuming that 'Shafah' in our Mishnah means 'files in a grindstone'). Others therefore explain 'Shafah' to mean - that the knife has to be wiped clean, using a rough woolen cloth.

(d) Rav Kahana (supported by a Beraisa) qualifies the above ruling - by precluding knives with holes or grooves from this procedure (because they may contain fat which will not be removed by using this method).

(a) Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua qualifies this concession still further. According to him, one can rely on this method of Kashering - for use with cold foodstuffs, but not with hot ones.

(b) When an Esrog was brought before Shavur Malka (King of Persia), he first cut himself a piece of Esrog - and one for Bati bar Tuvi, but stuck it in the ground ten times before cutting a piece to give to Rav Yehudah?

(c) When Bati bar Tuvi asked him whether he thought that Rav Yehudah was a Jew and he wasn't, he replied - that he knew Rav Yehudah to be a devout Jew who would not eat anything that was forbidden, but he did not know whether the same could be said about him.

(d) In the second answer, he (Shavur Malka) reminded him of what had happened the night before. He was referring to the incident - when he had accepted the Nochri woman that his host offered him for the night (as they offered all their guests), whereas Rav Yehudah had declined the offer.

On to Horayos