Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

*********************GIRSA SECTION*********************
We recommend using the textual changes suggested by the Bach and the
marginal notes of the Vilna Shas. This section is devoted to any *OTHER*
important corrections that Acharonim have pointed out in the Gemara, Rashi
and Tosfos

[1] Gemara 132a [line 11]:
The words "v'Hilchesa Kevasei d'Rav Ada bar Ahavah, Leviyah She'Yaldah"
should be "v'Hilchesa Kevasei d'Rav Ada bar Ahavah, *d'Amar* Leviyah
She'Yaldah"
(as it appears in the RIF and ROSH)

[2] Rashi 132b DH v'Lo me'Es ha'Kohanim:
The words "*Ka Salka Da'atach*" (preceding "d'Kohanim Lo Ikru Am")
should be removed (RASHASH)
*******************************************************

1) [line 14] MATUNACH - (a) I have reached you, i.e. overcome your arguments (RASHI); (b) according to the pronunciation MI'TUNACH - from your own load (argument), I shall burden you (i.e. I shall use the very verse that you brought as proof to your argument in order to prove that my argument is correct. Only where it says "Aharon u'Vanav" do we differentiate between a Kohen and Kohenes, but not otherwise -- RASHI to Zevachim 32b DH mi'Tunach)

2) [line 5] EIN MI'UT ACHAR MI'UT ELA L'RABOS
(a) When a Mi'ut (a word or phrase that excludes a particular case or item) is followed by another Mi'ut, the law is that "Ein Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut Ela l'Rabos." That is, when one limitation of the law appears after another limitation, the Torah's intent is to *extend* the law, rather than to limit it.
(b) This rule of Biblical interpretation explains the occurrence of two Mi'utim regarding an identical point as *extending* the Halachah they describe, rather than limiting it to include fewer items or to apply in fewer cases. That is, even though a single Mi'ut limits the Halachah to specific items or cases, a double Mi'ut teaches to *extend* the Halachah and not to interpret it in a limiting sense.
(c) The logical derivation for this rule is as follows: If we already know to apply the Halachah under discussion to a particular item (or case), it would not be necessary for the Torah to again teach that the Halachah applies only to that item. It is therefore evident from the second Mi'ut that the first one was *not* meant to limit the law to fewer items or cases. Likewise, the second Mi'ut cannot have been written to exclude those cases, for the Torah could have taught to exclude them by writing *only* the first Mi'ut. It must therefore be concluded that the double Mi'ut means to teach that we should *not* learn to exclude items or cases in the Halachah under discussion. (This rule is closely related to the rule of "Shenei Chesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad Ein Melamdim" -- see Background to Chulin 61:4 and to the converse rule of "Ein Ribuy Achar Ribuy Ela l'Ma'et -- see Background to Menachos 60:1.)
(d) In all cases of Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut, the obvious question is why did the Torah write even a single Mi'ut? Let the Torah write neither Mi'ut and we would know by ourselves not to exclude items or cases from the law, since there is no Mi'ut to exclude it! (Obviously the item would not be excluded without a Mi'ut, since we originally found it necessary to interpret the first Mi'ut as excluding that item.) TOSFOS (to Yoma 60a DH Trei) asks this question and answers that perhaps we would have excluded that item without the first Mi'ut, through a Binyan Av (see Background to Chulin 61:4:a) or a Kal va'Chomer (see Background to Avodah Zarah 46:22). The first Mi'ut was not really necessary, but we would have justified the Mi'ut as "Milsa d'Asya b'Kal va'Chomer Tarach v'Chasav Lah Kra" - "the Torah troubles itself to write out explicitly that which can be learned from a Kal va'Chomer" (see Kidushin 4a, Chulin 118b). The second Mi'ut teaches not only to ignore the first Mi'ut, but also to ignore the Binyan Av or Kal va'Chomer as well.

3) [line 6] ACHAL BISHVIL ISHTO - ate [the Matnos Kehunah of Zero'a Lechayayim v'Keivah] because of his wife (who received them because she was the daughter of a Kohen)

4) [line 14] KIL'AYIM - an animal that is a crossbreed (between a goat and a sheep)

5) [line 14] KOY
(a) There is a Machlokes Tana'im as to which animal Chazal (in our Gemara, et al.) refer to as a "Koy." Some Tana'im rule that it is a crossbreed between certain species of goats and deer, while others rule that is an independent species (Daf 80a). The Koy shows signs of being both a Behemah (a domesticated farm animal) and a Chayah (a non-farm animal). The Chelev (forbidden fat -- see Background to Chulin 116:19) of a Behemah is prohibited and its blood does not need Kisuy ha'Dam (covering after ritual slaughter -- see next entry), while the Chelev of a Chayah is not prohibited but its blood does need Kisuy ha'Dam.
(b) As a result, still other Tana'im rule that the status of a Koy is always in doubt (a Safek). This is usually the context in which the Gemara refers to a Koy, as an animal about which the Halachic status is uncertain. Because of this doubt, the Chelev of a Koy is prohibited and its blood requires Kisuy ha'Dam. (For additional Halachos regarding the Koy, see Bikurim 2:8-11)

6) [line 17] KISUY HA'DAM
There is a Mitzvah to cover the blood of all birds and Kosher non-farm animals (Chayos) that are slaughtered, as it states in Vayikra (17:13) "v'Ish Ish... Asher Yatzud Tzeid Chayah O Of Asher Ye'achel, v'Shafach Es Damo *v'Chisahu b'Afar*" - "And any person... who shall capture game consisting of Kosher non-farm animals, or Kosher birds that are eaten, he shall spill its blood *and cover it with earth*." The blood must be covered from above and below with earth or any similar granular substance.

7) [line 20] CHOSHESHIN L'ZERA HA'AV - we consider the seed of father as a contributing factor
(a) There is an argument among the Amora'im as to whether or not the species of the father of an animal has any bearing on its Halachic status. One of the numerous ramifications of this argument is the law of Kil'ayim. If we consider the seed of father as a contributing factor, then an animal born from two different species is considered to be a different species from its mother and its father. The offspring may not even be crossbred with the species of its mother. Similarly, a carriage may not be drawn by the crossbred offspring together with the thoroughbred mother or father.
(b) Two more ramifications discussed by our Gemara apply if the animal's father is a Chayah and its mother is a Behemah:

1. If we consider the seed of father as a contributing factor, a person who slaughters cattle or sheep cannot be obligated to give a Kohen more than half of the Matanos (the Zero'a, Lechayayim and Keivah) since the animal is only part-Behemah; if we do not consider the seed of father as a contributing factor, the animal is considered a thoroughbred Behemah and the Kohen receives all of the Matanos.
2. If we consider the seed of father as a contributing factor, there is a possibility that a person who slaughters the animal is obligated to perform Kisuy ha'Dam; if we do not consider the seed of father as a contributing factor, Kisuy ha'Dam is not performed.

8) [line 21] UV'"SEH, VA'AFILU MIKTZAS SEH" KA'MIPALGI - Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabanan argue whether the Torah obligates a person to give Matanos from his "Seh" (sheep) even if the animal is only partially a sheep or if the animal must be a thoroughbred sheep

9) [line 26] PALGA - half [of the value of the Matnos Kehunah]
10) [line 34] GIDO - its sciatic nerve (see Background to Chulin 89:34b)
11) [line 44] L'CHALEK - [that word "Im" (from the verse "Im Shor *Im* Seh" -- Devarim 18:3) is needed] to differentiate [between the words Shor and Seh, such that one is obligated in the Zero'a, Lechayayim v'Keivah even when only one of them is slaughtered, as opposed to teaching that the obligation falls only when slaughtering both of them]

12) [line 47] HA'DIN IM HA'TABACH - the [Kohen's] claim is with the butcher (even if the animal belongs to someone else)

13) [line 48] BECHOR SHE'NIS'AREV B'ME'AH - a Bechor that entered a herd and became lost among one hundred other animals (BECHOR)
See Background to Chulin 130:8.

14) [line 50] TZARICH SHE'YIRSHOM - he must mark the animal in a way that everyone knows that it is not entirely his

15) [line 8] USHPIZICHNEI - his innkeeper, host
16) [line 9] DACHIK LEI MILSA - he was very poor
17) [line 14] MAPIKNA LACH REBBI TAVLA ME'UNECH - (lit. "I will remove Rebbi Tavla from your ear") (a) I will refute all of Rebbi Tavla's proofs [such that his statement will no longer strengthen your claim] (RASHI); (b) I will inform you that Rebbi Tavla will not be able to help you, since I will excommunicate you (RASHBAM to Bava Basra 111a; RASHI to Yevamos 60b and to Sanhedrin 8a)

18) [line 18] SHABBOSOS - weeks
19) [line 21] KAVA MISCHASA - to put up a permanent stall for selling meat

20) [line 24] SHAMTA - excommunication
(a) The minimum period of Niduy (excommunication) is thirty days in Eretz Yisrael or seven days in Bavel and elsewhere. If the Menudeh does not repent from his ways he is put into Niduy for a second thirty-day period. If he still does not repent, he is then put into Cherem. The laws of Cherem are much more stringent.
(b) No one may come within four Amos of the Menudeh, except for his wife and family. He is not permitted to eat or drink with other people, nor is he included in a Zimun or any other Mitzvah that requires a quorum of ten men. He may not wash his clothes, shave or take a haircut or wear shoes. Learning and teaching Torah, however, are permitted, as well as engaging in work. The last two are not permitted to a Muchram, who must learn by himself and engage in work to the minimum that will provide him daily sustenance. People may speak with the Menudeh or the Muchram unless Beis Din specifically prohibits it.
(c) Even if the period of Cherem or Niduy has ended, a person remains in Niduy or Cherem until he is permitted by three commoners or by an expert sage (SHULCHAN ARUCH Yoreh De'ah 334:27 and REMA ibid. 334:24)

21) [line 26] L'MAI HILCHESA - for what Halachic reason [did Rabah bar Rav Shila mention that those butchers have been excommunicated *for the past twenty-two years* for defying Rav Chisda's ruling]?

22) [line 31] MAKIN OSO AD SHE'TEITZE NAFSHO (MAKAS MARDUS)
Beis Din has the power to inflict lashes upon a person when lashes mid'Oraisa cannot be instituted. These lashes are called Makas Mardus (lit. lashes for rebelliousness) and may be unlimited in number. (See Insights to Chulin 110:2 for a discussion of the various opinions regarding how Makas Mardus is administered.)

23) [line 32] ASRAYASA - warning
24) [line 32] KANIS ATMA - fined [a person who did not give Matnos Kehunah without warning by taking away] an entire thigh [and giving it to the Kohen]

25) [line 32] GELIMA - coat
26) [line 34] PALGINAN LEHU GARMA GARMA - (a) they apportion each Kohen half a bone (RASHI); (b) they divided the Zero'a into two sections, giving each Kohen a whole bone (ROSH; SHULCHAN ARUCH)

27) [line 38] B'CHARDAL - with mustard
28) [line 38] "L'MASHCHA" - "for greatness" (Bamidbar 18:8)

29) [line 39] ESRIM V'ARBA MATNOS KEHUNAH - the twenty-four gifts to the Kohanim
See Background to Bava Kama 110:23.

30) [line 41] "HA'MAKRIV ES DAM HA'SHELAMIM V'ES HA'CHELEV MI'BENEI AHARON, LO SIHEYEH SHOK HA'YAMIN L'MANAH." - "The one from the sons of Aharon who offers the blood of the [Korban] Shelamim and the Chelev, to him shall the right Shok (the upper two bones of the right foreleg) be given as a portion." (Vayikra 7:33)

31) [line 43] YETZIKOS - *pouring* the *remainder* of the oil over the dough of the flour offering (oil was poured into most Menachos three times; before the flour was added, along with the flour for mixing, and over the finished dough)

32) [line 43] BELILOS - *mixing* oil into the flour of the flour offering
33) [line 43] PESISOS - folding and breaking the baked loaves of the flour offerings into pieces

34) [last line] MELICHOS - salting all sacrifices and flour offerings

35) [last line] TENUFOS (TENUFAH)
Waving portions of certain Korbanos and flour offerings is called Tenufah; the Kohen, together with the owner of the Korban (when it is not a Korban Tzibur), waves them in all four directions and up and down (Vayikra 7:30, RASHI to Menachos 62a DH Molich. TOSFOS to Sukah 37b DH Kedei, ponders whether all Tenufos were done in this fashion, or whether some Tenufos only required lifting and lowering).

36) [last line] HAGASHOS - touching the southwest corner of the Mizbe'ach with the utensil containing the Minchah

37) [last line] KEMITZOS (KEMITZAH)
(a) A Kometz is the amount that can be held by the middle three fingers when they are pressed upon the palm. The Kohen puts his hand in the dough or baked goods and removes one handful. Using the thumb and smallest finger of the same hand, he next wipes off the dough or baked goods that stick out, until only the Kometz remains.
(b) Kemitzah is only performed when a Minchah is brought by a non-Kohen. A Minchah that is brought by the Tzibur, a Minchah offered by a Kohen, and a Minchah that is brought together with an animal Korban (the Minchas Nesachim -- see Background to Menachos 57:11) are entirely burned on the Mizbe'ach.

Next daf