Previous daf

1)

(a) We learn from "Acharei Rabim Lehatos" - the principle 'Zil Basar Ruba' (that we go after the majority).

(b) We are surprised that this Pasuk is quoted as the source for 'Zil Basar Ruba' - because we already know this D'rashah, which pertains to 'Ruba de'Iysa Kaman' (a visible Rov), and our She'eilah 'Minalan' pertained to a 'Ruba de'Leisa Kaman' (an invisible Rov, based on what the majority of people do or what happens to them).

(c) We give examples of Ruba de'Iysa Kaman as 'Tesha Chanuyos' and 'Sanhedrin', and of Ruba de'Leisa Kaman as 'Katan u'Ketanah'. By ...

1. ... 'Tesha Chanuyos' we mean - that if nine shops sell Kasher meat, and one shop, Tereifah meat, then we assume a piece of meat that is found in the street to have been purchased in one of the Kasher shops.
2. ... 'Sanhedrin' we mean - that if twelve Dayanim rule that a man is innocent, and eleven rule that he is guilty, we go after the majority, and declare him innocent.
3. ... 'Katan u'Ketanah' we mean - that if a Katan acquires his Yevamah who is a Ketanah, we allow them to live together until they grow up, ignoring the possibility that the Yavam might be a S'ris or the Yevamah, an Aylonis (neither of whom cannot have children). If that is so, the Yibum is invalid, and they will be Chayav Kareis (on account of Eishes Ach she'Lo be'Makom Mitzvah) - because it only happens in a minority of cases, and we go after the majority.

(a) Rebbi Elazar tries to learn it from the head of the Olah. Given that the Pasuk prohibits cutting it into pieces ("Ve'nitach Osah li'Nesachehah", "Osah li'Nesachehah" ... , he tries to prove 'Zil Basar Ruba' - from the fact that, since it is forbidden to cut it into pieces, there is no way of knowing whether the K'rum shel Mo'ach (the membrane covering the brain) is holed (which will render the animal a Tereifah) or not, and it can only be Kasher because we go after the majority of cases, where it is not.

(b) We counter his proof however, with 'Dilma Pali Leih' - meaning that even though we cannot cut the head of the Olah into more pieces, we can however, cut it open, without dividing it into two.

(c) Mar b'rei de'Ravina brings exactly the same proof from the Korban Pesach, only based on the Pasuk "ve'Etzem Lo Sishberu Bo". And we counter his proof - by citing the possibility of examining the K'rum shel Mo'ach by burning the bone of the skull, without actually breaking it.

(d) We know that burning the bone is permitted -from the Beraisa ' ... ha'Soref ba'Atzamos, Ein bo Mishum Sheviras Etzem'.

(a) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak tries to prove the Din of Rov from the Alyah (the fat-tail of a lamb) which must be brought whole. The problem in doing so is - that maybe the spinal cord is broken, in which case, the animal is a Tereifah.

(b) If, as we suggest, one were to cut off the Alyah beyond the 'bein ha'Parshos' (the point where the spinal cord branches into three) - there would be no problem, because from that point on, even if it was broken, it would not render the animal a Tereifah, since it can support itself on its thighs, and does not need the spinal cord to support it.

(c) The Pasuk (in connection with the Alyah) "le'Umas he'Atzeh (i.e. the kidneys, which are the source of advice) Yesirenah" however, dispenses with this suggestion - since the kidneys are located before the bein ha'Parshos, in which case the animal will indeed be a Tereifah if the spinal cord is broken at that point.

(d) We nevertheless reject Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's proof from there - like we did earlier, by incorporating cutting open the Alyah (without actually dividing it in two) in "Temimah".

(a) Rav Sheishes b'rei de'Rav Idi learns the Din of Rov from Eglah Arufah. We learn from the Lashon "ha'Arufah" - that the calf must remain whole ...

(b) ... a proof that we go after Rov animals which are not Tereifah. Otherwise, how do we know that it is not?

(c) Rabah bar Rav Shilo learns Rov from Parah Adumah. We learn from the Pasuk "Ve'shachat ... Ve'saraf" - that just as when it is Shechted, it is whole, so too, must it be whole when it is burned. Here too, the only way of now knowing that the animal is not a Tereifah, is by going after the majority of animals.

(d) Despite the fact that neither the Eglah Arufah nor the Parah Adumah is brought on the Mizbe'ach, if ...

1. ... the Eglah Arufah was a Tereifah, it would be Pasul, because, as Rebbi Yanai points out - the Torah writes 'Kaparah' in connection with it (just like it does by Kodshim).
2. ... the Parah Adumah was a Tereifah, it too, would be Pasul - because the Torah refers to is as 'a Chatas'.

(a) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov brings the same proof for Rov from the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach. We learn from the Pasuk "Ve'lakach es Sh'nei ha'Se'irim" - that they must both be equal.

(b) He proves from here that we go after Rov - because otherwise, how would we know that the one which will eventually go to Az'azel (which there will be no way of examining) is not a Tereifah (in which case they will not be equal)?

(c) Even though the Sa'ir la'Az'azel is not brought on the Mizbe'ach - the Torah is particular that it should not be a Tereifah, because a goat which cannot become the Sa'ir la'Hashem, is not eligible for Az'azel either.

(d) It is not possible to examine the Sa'ir la'Az'azel after it has been pushed down from the rock - because, as we learned in the Mishnah in Yoma, by the time the goat reached half way to the valley below, it was broken up into many pieces, and there was no way of recognising whether any particular limb had been broken in its lifetime or after its death.

6)

(a) Rav Mari learns Rov from the Din of someone who strikes his father - for which he is Chayav Misah. If not for the principle that 'Rov Be'ilos Achar ha'Ba'al', how would we know that the man he struck was his father?

(b) And he knows that the Pasuk is not speaking exclusively about a case where both his parents where alone in prison when he was conceived - because even it was, there would be no guarantee that his mother's husband was his father, due to the principle of 'Ein Apotropos la'Arayos' (there is no guarantee that the woman's captors did not commit adultery with her, in spite of the fact that her husband is in jail with her), unless we go after the Rov.

(a) Rav Kahana learns Rov from a murderer, who is subsequently sentenced to death at the hand of Beis-Din - even though there is always a Safek perhaps the victim was a Tereifah (for whose murder one is not Chayav Misah).

(b) We object to the query that we should ...

1. ... examine the victim (see Tosfos DH 've'Chi Teima') - on the grounds that it is not Kavod ha'Meis, to cut up his body.
2. ... nevertheless examine him in order to save the murderer's life - on the grounds that, even if we did, how would we know that the murderer did not pierce the victim in a location where there was already a hole (rendering him a Tereifah).

(c) Ravina brings the equivalent proof from witnesses who testified that Reuven killed someone, and then became Eidim Zomemin. We do not even raise the issue of examining the victim to see, whether or not, he is a Tereifah (like we did in the previous case) - because he is still alive. If he were not, then the witnesses would not be Eidim Zomemin (as we learned in a Beraisa 'Hargu, Ein Neheragin').

(a) Rav Ashi learns Rov from Shechitah itself - from the fact that we do not suspect that the Shochet Shechted in the exact location where there was a hole ...

(b) ... in the esophagus (because the trachea only renders the animal a Tereifah if the majority of the pipe is split, but not with a tiny hole).

(c) Rav Kahana (or Rav Shimi) objected to all these proofs. Perhaps, he argued - we only go after the Rov in cases where it is impossible to check, but wherever it is, we do.

(d) Consequently, we ought to ...

1. ... examine an animal for all eighteen Tereifos.
2. ... instruct a Katan and Ketanah who performed Yibum, to wait until they grow up, and it is proved that the one is not a S'ris, and the other, an Aylonis.

(a) Rav Kahana (or Rav Shimi) proves his point from Rebbi Meir, who holds 'Chosheshin le'Mi'uta' - who, if not for the distinction that we just made, would never have eaten meat.

(b) The problem in saying that indeed, he did not (in case the Shochet Shechted in the exact location of a hole) is - regarding Pesach and Kodshim, both of which one is obligated to eat (the former, based on the Pasuk in Bo "Ve'achlu es ha'Basar ba'Laylah ha'Zeh", the latter, based on the Pasuk in Tetzaveh "Ve'achlu Osam Asher Kupar Bahem").

(c) This goes to proves - that even Rebbi Meir only takes the minority into account when there is no choice, but relies on the majority, where it is unavoidable.

(d) Since we see that even Rebbi Meir does not suspect (min ha'Torah) that maybe the Shochet Shechted in the location of a hole - there must be a source that overrides that suspicion, as we shall now see, with which the Rabbanan will certainly agree.

(a) It appears that, at the end of the day, 'Zil Basar Ruba' even in cases where it is possible to check, is either 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai' - or learned from "Acharei Rabim Lehatos", negating our previous objection distinguishing between a Ruba de'Iysa Lekaman and a Ruba de'Leisa Lekaman (see also Rabeinu Gershom and Tosfos DH 'Pesach ve'Kodshsim').

(b) Nevertheless, we customarily examine an animal's lungs - (mi'de'Rabbanan) because defects are common among them.

(c) If however, the lungs got lost, and were not examined - the animal is nevertheless Kasher.