Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav requires a Talmid-Chacham to become proficient in three things.
One of them is K'sav - which means that he should know how to write his name in script (see Rashash).

(b) The other two are - Shechitah and Milah.

(c) Rav Chananya bar Shalmaya in the name of Rav adds another three. One of them is Kesher shel Tefilin - which requires special expertise in that the 'Yud' and the 'Daled' of Shakay are incorporated into the knot of the shel Yad and the shel Rosh, respectively.

(d) The second thing on Chananya bar Shalmaya Amar Rav's list is Birchas Chasanim - the third is - Tzitzis.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav did not include the latter three in his list - because they are common (in which case, everyone is automatically conversant, and the Talmid Chacham's service will not be required [see also Tosfos DH 've'Idach']).

(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules - that one is not permitted to eat from the Shechitah of a Shochet who is not conversant with Hilchos Shechitah.

(c) The five things that he incorporates in Hilchos Shechitah include Shehiyah, D'rasah and Chaladah (which we already cited earlier) - Hagramah (Shechting outside the prescribed location) and Ikur (tearing out one of the Si'manim).

(d) Even though all five are specifically mentioned in the Mishnah, Rav Yehudah is coming to teach us that the Shechitah is Pasul - even in a case where the butcher Shechted in front of us faultlessly two or three times, because there are times when he will make Shehiyah or D'rasah, without even realising that this renders his Shechitah Pasul.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel - obligates the Shochet to examine the Si'manim after he has Shechted the animal.

(b) Rav Yosef queries this ruling in light of Rebbi Shimon in the Mishnah in 'ha'Shochet', who gives the Shi'ur Shehiyah as 'k'dei Bikur'. Assuming that the Tana is referring to the time it takes to examine the Si'manim - he infers from there that the Tana already requires the Shochet to perform such an examination, rendering Rav Yehudah's ruling superfluous.

(c) In answering the Kashya, Abaye cites Rebbi Yochanan, who explains - that the Tana is referring to the time it takes for the Chacham to examine the Shochet's knife.

(d) The problem with Rebbi Yochanan's statement the way it stands is - that it clashes with the principle 'Nasata Devarecha le'Shi'urim' (the Chachamim do not give a Shi'ur that differs from case to case, depending on how long it will take to get to the Chacham).

(e) So we amend the Lashon to - the time it takes for a Shochet who is himself an outstanding Chacham to examine his own knife.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer ben Antignos in the name of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yanai rules that if the Shochet failed to examine the Si'manim, we declare the animal to be a Tereifah. According to the Beraisa - it is a Neveilah.

(b) The ramifications of the Machlokes are - whether the animal is also Tamei Neveilah (the Beraisa) or not (Rebbi Eliezer ben Antignos).

(c) And we connect the Machlokes to a statement of Rav Huna, who rules that an animal ...

1. ... in its lifetime - has a Chezkas Isur (i.e. Eiver min ha'Chai) until one knows that it has been Shechted properly.
2. ... after it has been Shechted - has a Chezkas Kashrus until one knows how it because a T'reifah (which will be explained shortly).

(d) The S'vara behind the principle of Chazakah - is equivalent to that of 'Ein Safek Motzi mi'Yedei Vaday' (a Safek cannot change a Vaday status).

1. ... the Beraisa consider the animal a Neveilah - because if we assume the animal not to have been Shechted, then it is a Neveilah, and a Neveilah is Tamei.
2. ... Rebbi Eliezer ben Antignos considers it a Tereifah, but not a Neveilah - because, even if the animal had not been Shechted, it would not have been Tamei, so how can the Chazakah that results from not being Shechted, render the animal Tamei?

(a) The problem with the second half of Rav Huna's statement 'Nishchetah, be'Chezkas Heter Omedes ... ' is - that unless there is a 'Re'usa' (a fault that might in fact, render the animal a Tereifah), he ought to have said 'Nishchetah, Hutrah'.

(b) And we answer - that Rav Huna does indeed speak when there is a 'Re'usa'.

(c) We dismiss the initial suggestion that he is speaking when ...

1. ... a wolf came and removed the intestines - on the grounds that in that case, there is no Re'usa either.
2. ... he found a hole in them - on the grounds that in that case, there is no reason for the animal not to be Tereifah.

(a) To establish the case, we cite Rebbi Aba, who asked Rav Huna about a wolf that ran off with a Shechted animal's intestines, and then returned them - with a hole.

(b) And he asked him - whether we suspect that the wolf's tooth entered the hole that had existed already before (in which case the animal is Tereifah), or whether we consider that too far-fetched, preferring to assume that it pierced the intestines and made the hole after running off with them (in which case it is Kasher).

(c) Rav Huna replied 'Ein Chosheshin Shema be'Makom Nekev Nikeiv'.

(d) And that is precisely what he is referring to in the second half of his previous statement 'Nishchetah, be'Chezkas Heter Omedes ... ' (even if the wolf made of with the intestines, and returned them with a hole).

8)

(a) Rebbi Aba queried Rav Huna from a Beraisa, which forbids a fig in which one sees a bird pecking a hole, or a water-melon in which a mouse is eating one - because we suspect that the hole that they made coincides exactly with the spot which a snake had previously pierced with its fangs.

(b) Rav Huna reconciled his ruling with the Beraisa - by differentiating between Safek Isur (where we go le'Kula under the current circumstances) and Safek Sakanah, where we go le'Chumra.

(c) Rava queries Rav Huna's distinction - based on the principle 'Safek Isura le'Chumra', which is just as much Halachah as 'Safek Sakanta'.

(a) Abaye tries to defend Rav Huna with a Mishnah in Taharos, where the Tana rules - 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, Tahor' ...

(b) ... appearing to clash with the Din of 'Safek Mayim Megulin ... Asurin', unless we differentiate between Safek Isur and Safek Sakanta.

(c) Rava dismisses Abaye's proof however. We learn the principle 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, Tahor' - from Sotah, whom the Torah declares Tamei (i.e. forbids her on her husband), only because she secluded herself in a Reshus ha'Yachid, from which we extrapolate that, had she gone with a man in the Reshus ha'Rabim, she would be Tahor.

(d) Rava refutes Abaye's proof - on the grounds that we should rather learn Safek Isur from Safek Tum'ah *bi'Reshus ha'Yachid*, which is Tamei, and consider 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim Tahor' as a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv'.

(a) Rav Shimi queries Rava from another Beraisa, which rules that if a weasel walked over Terumah loaves with a Sheretz in its mouth, which may, or may not, have touched the loaves - the loaves are Tahor.

(b) Rava dismisses Rav Shimi's proof from the discrepancy between this ruling and that of Safek Mayim Megulin, that the Tana draws a distinction between Safek Isur and Safek Sakanta - in the same way as he dismissed Abaye's previous proof, by establishing Safek Tum'ah as a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' that we learn from Safek Sotah ...

(c) ... which is only Tamei because the woman is able to answer should one ask her whether she is Tamei or not, but not if the Safek Tum'ah pertains to an animal.

(a) Rav Ashi queries Rava from a Mishnah in Parah, where the Tana rules that a flask containing spring water for the Mei Parah that one left open, and later found covered, is Tamei - because we suspect that a Tamei person came and covered it.

(b) The Mishnah must be speaking about water that was not yet sanctified with the ashes of the Parah Adumah, because if it was - then the word 'Tamei' would be inappropriate, because if the Tana is coming to teach us that it is Tami, Mei Chatas is Tamei anyway; whereas if he is coming to teach us that the water is Pasul, then he should have said 'Pasul'.

(c) It is obvious - that one may no longer use the water as Mei Chatas (due to the many additional Chumros regarding Taharah that the Chachamim initiated regarding its preparation).

(d) In the reverse case, where one left the water covered and found it uncovered, assuming that a weasel could possibly have drunk from it (or a snake according to Raban Gamliel), or if dew fell on it during the night - the Tana invalidates it.

(e) It is possible for a weasel to have drunk from the water but not a snake - if it has been placed on a high shelf that a snake cannot reach.

(a) The Tana declares the water Pasul because ...

1. ... a weasel (or a snake) drank from it - since it laps up the water in such a way, that some of it falls back into the flask (whilst a snake vomits the water back into the flask [rendering it Pasul because of water that has been used]), or perhaps because it is like water that is poured from one K'li into another, which is not considered 'Mayim Chayim' (spring water, as prescribed by the Torah).
2. ... dew fell on it - because dew is not Mayim Chayim.

(b) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi explains - that ...

1. ... in the Reisha, we declare the water Tamei, because seeing as only human beings cover vessels (and not animals), it can only have been a person who touched it, and we suspect that a Tamei person covered it, because Tamei people are common.
2. ... in the Seifa, we declare it Tahor, because Sheratzim uncover vessels too, so it could have been a Sheretz that did it; and Sheratzim and Tahor people constitute a majority (as against people who are Tamei).

(c) Rav Ashi finally extrapolates that Sakanah is more stringent than Isur (like Rav Huna and Abaye) from ...

1. ... the Seifa - from the fact that, in the Seifa, we go after the Rov, even le'Kula (even though by Safek Mayim Megulin, we don't, as we shall see. Note, since we are currently concerned about whether 'Chamira Sakanta me'Isura or not, the fact that the Sugya initially discussed a rare Safek, then switched to a regular one, and now, to a Rov, is of no consequence]).
2. ... an inference from the Reisha and the Seifa - because the Mishnah implies that if he found the flask as he left it, the water would be neither Tamei nor Pasul, in spite of the Safek that a Tamei person may have touched it, or a weasel or a snake may have drank from it (whereas in the equivalent case by Mayim Megulin, the water would be forbidden.

(a) A third alternative is to learn both Isura and Sakanta from the Seifa from the Lashon 'Pesulah', - implying 'Pasul' but not Tamei. This in turn, implies that we suspect a snake of having uncovered it and drunk from it, but not a Tamei person, a clear proof that 'Chamira Sakanta me'Isura'.

(b) We would however, then be forced to change the text in the Sugya - by omitting the final phrase 've'Ilu Safek Mayim Megulin, Asurin'.

(c) We reject this explanation however, on the basis of the fact that the Tana Kama refers, not to a snake, but to a weasel. And besides - even Raban Gamliel includes the possibility that a weasel drunk from it as well as a snake, in which case, the Tana should have said 'Teme'ah', and not 'Pesulah'.

(d) Finally, if the Mishnah was also concerned with Sakanah, the ideal ruling (at least, according to Raban Gamliel) would have been - 'Pesulah' (because of a snake) u'Teme'ah' (because of Adam Tamei).