Previous daf

1)

(a) When Rebbi Yanai says (with reference to the B'nei Rebbi Chiya's statement ('Mitzvas Melikah, Machzir Si'manim la'Achorei ha'Oref u'Molek') 'Yekablu ha'Rovin es Teshuvasan', he means - that the youngsters will have to accept the following Kashya.

(b) In querying them from our Mishnah, he interprets the statement 'Nimtza Kasher bi'Shechitah, Pasul bi'Melikah ... ' - to mean that the Tana is coming to preclude 'Machzir Si'manim la'Achorei ha'Oref' by Melikah.

(c) The Mishnah cannot be referring to the distinction between 'Oref' and 'Tzavar' - since it already made that distinction in the Reisha.

(d) The Tana mentions ...

1. ... 'Kasher bi'Melikah, Pasul bi'Shechitah' (in the Seifa) - in order to balance 'Kasher bi'Shechitah, Pasul bi'Melikah' (in the Reisha).
2. ... 'Kasher bi'Shechitah, Pasul bi'Melikah', according to Rabah bar bar Chanah's refutation of Rebbi Yanai, that the Tana is referring to 'Shen ve'Tziporen' (a tooth and a fingernail), which are Kasher by Melikah but Pasul by Shechitah - to balance 'Kasher bi'Melikah, u'Pasul bi'Shechitah'.

(a) We know that 'Lime'utei Shen ve'Tziporen' precludes Mechubar by Shechitah, and not Talush by Melikah - because then Rabah bar bar Chanah would have said 'Li'me'utei Talush' (rather than 'Shen ve'Tziporen').

(b) In fact, it would not even be necessary to preclude Talush from Melikah - since Melikah by definition, means the attached finger-nail of the Kohen.

(c) When we ask 'Shen ve'Tziporen Behedya Katani Lehu', we are referring to - the Mishnah earlier in the Perek, which precluded teeth and a finger-nail which are Mechubar, from the Din of Shechitah.

(d) So Rebbi Yirmiyah establishes 'Nimtza Kasher bi'Shechitah, Pasul bi'Melikah' by 'Molich u'Meivi', and the Tana is telling us - that 'Molech u'Meivi is Kasher by Shechitah, but Pasul by Melikah.

(a) There is no way that the B'nei Rebbi Chiya can explain 'Nimtza Kasher bi'Shechitah, Pasul bi'Melikah' according to those who validate Molich u'Meivi by Melikah - they inevitably hold that Molich u'Meivi by Melikah is Pasul.

(b) Rav Kahana defined the Mitzvah of Melikah as 'Kotzetz Ve'yored'. Rebbi Avin understood - that Rav Kahana was coming to preclude Molich u'Meivi (like the B'nei Rebbi Chiya).

(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah disillusioned him however, in that, if 'Kotzetz Ve'yored' is Kasher, how much more so 'Molich u'Meivi' (seeing as there is no Pasuk to preclude it). And when Rav Kahana said categorically 'Mitzvas Melikah Kotzetz Ve'yored', he meant - even Kotzetz ve'Yored.

(a) We extrapolate from Rebbi Yirmiyah Amar Shmuel's statement 'Kol ha'Kasher bi'Shechitah, Kenegdo be'Oref, Kasher bi'Melikah' - 'Ha Pasul bi'Shechitah, Pasul bi'Melikah'?

(b) We are forced to make this inference - because we have already learned in the Mishnah that the Oref is Kasher for Melikah, and we do not need Shmuel to teach it to us.

(c) If Shmuel holds 'Molich u'Meivi Pasul bi'Melikah', then his initial statement is problematic. And if he holds 'Molich u'Meivi Kasher bi'Melikah' - then he certainly holds 'Kotzetz ve'Yored', which clashes with the inference 'Ha Pasul, Pasul'.

(d) Consequently, we must say that Shmuel is not talking about the Dinim of Shechitah - but about the Hechsher of the Makom Melikah.

(a) Shmuel cannot be referring to performing Melikah ...

1. ... on Simanim which had been moved to the back (Ikur Simanim), because of the statement of Rami bar Yechezkel, citing a Beraisa - that a bird is not subject to Ikur Simanim.
2. ... on the head - because, as we have already learned, the Torah requires "Mul Orpo" (and not 'Rosho').

(b) So we change Rosho to 'Shipuy Rosho' - which is synonymous with the Oref ...

(c) ... where he performed the first third of the Melikah, before finishing the last two thirds in the Makom Shechitah.

(d) And it is Pasul, according to the opinion of Rav Huna Amar Rav Asi - who stated earlier 'Higrim Shelish, Ve'shachat Sh'nei Shelishi, Pesulah'.

6)

(a) Despite the fact that there is no Pasuk in the Torah that requires Shechitah by a bird, some nevertheless hold that Shechitas ha'Of is min ha'Torah - due to a 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

(b) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava qualifies Rami bar Yechezkel's ruling 'Ein Ikur Simanim ba'Of' - by confining it to those who hold Shechitas ha'Of is mi'de'Rabbanan. Those who hold that it is min ha'Torah however, will also hold 'Yesh Ikur Simanim ba'Of'.

(c) Rav Ashi maintains - 'Adraba, Ipcha Mistabra!' Quite the opposite. It is those who hold 'Shechitas ha'Of min ha'Torah' who will hold 'Ein Ikur Simanim ba'Of' and vice-versa.

(d) There is more reason to say ...

1. ... 'Ein Ikur ba'Of if Shechitah ba'Of according to those who hold 'Shechitas ha'Of min ha'Torah - because that is part of the 'Halachah ... '.
2. ... 'Yesh Ikur Simanim ba'Of ' if it is mi'de'Rabbanan - because then the Rabbanan simply applied the Halachos of Shechitas Beheimahto Shechitas ha'Of.

(a) Rava bar Kisi too, qualifies Rami bar Yechezkel's ruling, confining it to Melikah - because we compare Ikur to D'rasah and Chaladah, which by virtue of the nature of Melikah, do obviously not apply to it.

(b) This clashes with Rebbi Yirmiyah Amar Shmuel - who said earlier that 'Kol ha'Pasul bi'Shechitah, Posel bi'Melikah'.

(c) And we answer - that Rava bar Kisi does indeed disagree with Rebbi Yirmiyah Amar Shmuel, who extends the K'lal of 'Ein Ikur Simanim ba'Of' to Shechitah.

(a) According to Shmuel - Rami bar Yechezkel's Beraisa is not Halachah, in view of a Beraisa which we will discuss in Perek ha'Shochet, which clearly includes the P'sul of Ikur in the Din of Shechitas ha'Of .

(b) The basis of the Machlokes between the two Beraisos is - whether 'Shechitas ha'Of min ha'Torah' (the Beraisa of Rami bar Yechezkel) or 'Ein Shechitas ha'Of min ha'Torah' (the Beraisa in ha'Shochet).

(c) Since no ruling is issued regarding this point - we apply the principle 'S'feika d'Oraysa le'Chumra', and Ikur Simanim will invalidate the Shechitah.

(a) Ze'iri rules that if the Mafrekes of a bird ...

1. ... was broken together with the majority of the flesh that surrounds it - it is a Neveilah, which is Metamei whoever touches it (even if the bird is still convulsing).
2. ... was broken on its own - it is a Tereifah, which is still considered to be alive, and which will not be a Neveilah if it is properly Shechted before it dies.

(b) Rav Chisda supports Ze'eiri from a Mishnah in Zevachim, which rules that someone who eats a Chatas ha'Of on which a Kohen performed Melikah using a knife - is Metamei Begadim a'Beis ha'Beli'ah ...

(c) ... which means - that if someone then eats it , besides himself becoming Tamei, the clothes that he is wearing at the time become Tamei as well (as is the Din regarding someone who eats a Nivlas Of Tahor).

(d) This proves Ze'iri's ruling - in that since Melikah with a knife is considered Shechitah, the Kohen in effect, has broken the Mafrekes with the majority of the flesh surrounding it, and the Mishnah considers it a Neveilah.

(a) If not for Ze'iri - a bird with a broken Mafrekes and Rov Basar would be a Tereifah, which is not Metamei Befgadim ... .

(b) The ruling (cited in 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rotav') 'Tereifah she'Shachtah, Metam'ah' - is only mi'de'Rabbanan, and does affect the clothes the person is wearing.

(c) We refute Rav Chisda's proof however, on the grounds - that the case in the Mishnah in Zevachim (unlike the case of Ze'iri, where the Shechitah is performed afterwards fron scratch) is worse - in that there, the Shechitah is not a valid Shechitah at all (in which case the animal is automatically a Neveilah).

(a) According to Rav Huna, the Mishnah in Zevachim is worse because the Kohen performed Chaladah (since the knife was not fully visible when cutting the Mafrekes). Rava maintains that he perfpormed D'rashah (because he holds 'Molich u'Meivi bi'Melikah, Pasul', as we learned earlier.

(b)

1. Rav Huna declines to learn like Rava - because he holds 'Molich u'Meivi bi'Melikah, Kasher'.
2. And Rava declines to learn like Rav Huna - because he holds that a knife cutting through bone can be seen, and is not therefore considered hidden ... .

(c) ... like a weasel (Chuldah) which lives in an underground tunnel (which is the definition of Chaladah).

(d) Rava's problem with Ze'eiri's ruling is - that if breaking the Mafrekes together with Rov Basar turns the bird into a Neveilah (which effectively means that it is dead) - bearing in mind that this is how the Kohen normally performs Melikah, how can he then go on to perform Melikah on a dead bird?

(a) Abaye countered Rava's Kashya, from Olas ha'Of, which requires the cutting of both Simanim - even though once the first Si'man has been cut, the bird is considered dead.

(b) To which Rava replied - that the purpose of Melikah of the second Si'man is not to kill the bird, but in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of 'Havdalah' (severing the two Simanim from the body).

(c) We query this however, from the skin of the Olas ha'Of - which everybody agrees, does not need to be severed. According to Rava (who learns that the Havdalah is not part of the Melikah per se), what is then the difference between the second Si'man and the skin in this regard?

(a) Rava replies - that whatever is crucial to the Shechitah (or Melikah, i.e. the second Si'man), is crucial to the Mitzvah of Havdalah, and whatever is not (i.e. the skin), is not crucial to the Havdalah either.

(b) We query this answer however - from Miy'ut Simanim, which are not crucial to the Shechitah (according to the Rabanan of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon) - yet they are crucial to the Mitzvah of Havdalah.

(c) Rava therefore re-words his previous answer to read - 'Whatever is included in the Shechitah is crucial to the Mitzvah of Havdalah (including Miy'ut Simanim, but precluding the skin).

(d) And finally, to answer his initial Kashya on Ze'iri ('ve'Chi Meisah Omed u'Molek') Rava defines the Mitzvah of Melikah - as cutting the Shedrah (the spinal cord) and the Mafrekes but without Rov Basar (which even Ze'iri will admit, does not render the bird a Neveilah), before piercing the Simanim.