Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Zeira explains 'Hayah Shochet, ve'Hitiz es ha'Rosh be'Bas Achas, Im Yesh be'Sakin M'lo Tzavar' to mean 'M'lo Tzavar ve'Chutz le'Tzavar' - which means either a second M'lo Tzavar over and above the first one, or a Mashehu more.

(b) We resolve the She'eilah from the Seifa 'Hayah Shochet, Ve'hitiz Sh'nei Rashin be'Bas Achas, Im Yesh be'Sakin M'lo Tzavar Echad, Kesheirah' - which can only mean an extra M'lo Tzavar over and above the two neck-lengths of the two animals. Consequently, M'lo Tzavar in the Reisha must also mean a M'lo Tzavar more than the initial neck-length.

(a) Rav Menasheh qualifies the Izmal permitted by our Mishnah. According to him, the Tana will - forbid one which has a section coming off it at right angles, which contains a pair of vertical horn-like projections

(b) He also invalidates ...

1. ... the above Izmal - because, due to its small size, it is likely to slip from the neck and either make Chaladah or make a hole in the Veshet.
2. ... a needle - because it tears the Simanim, rather than cuts them.

(c) He tries to ...

1. ... prove that a leather-maker's needle, which has sharp sides (to cut the yarn) will nevertheless be permitted, from - 'Afilu Kol-she'Hu' in our Mishnah ('Aval Im Holich Ve'heivi Afilu Kol-she'Hu Afilu be'Izmal Kesheirah'), which is otherwise superfluous.
2. ... counters Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ivya, who establishes 'Kol-Shehu' by an Izmal - by pointing out that the Tana goes on to specifically mention an Izmal (so why would he need to incorporate it by means of a Ribuy.

(d) Rav Acha refutes this proof - by suggesting that 'Afilu be'Izmal Kesheirah' comes to explain 'Afilu Kol she'Hu' that precedes it.

(e) And Rav Menasheh refutes Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ivya's claim that 'Kol-Shehu' must refer to an Izmal, because otherwise, if a leather-maker's needle is Kasher, then how much more so an Izmal (and why would the Tana then need to insert it Izmal in the Mishnah - to dispel the notion that perhaps Chazal decreed an Izmal without Karnayim on account of an Izmal with Karnayim.

(a) Our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk "Vezavachta Ve'achalta" - that if a knife falls out of somebody's hands and Shechts by itself, the Shechitah is Pasul.

(b) We extrapolate from our Mishnah that if someone actually threw the knife and it Shechted in flight - the Shechitah is Kasher?

(c) And the author of our Mishnah must then be Rebbi Nasan (as we shall now see) - who considers a Shechitah Kasher even though the Shochet did not actually intend to Shecht.

(a) Oshaya Ze'ira de'min Chavraya cites a Beraisa, which discusses a case where someone throws a knife at a wall, and it Shechts in flight. 'Oshaya Ze'ira de'min Chavraya' either means - Oshaya the youngest in the Yeshivah, or 'Oshaya Ze'ira of the Yeshivah'.

(b) Rebbi Nasan validates the Shechitah - the Chachamim invalidate it.

(c) After citing this Machlokes, Oshaya Ze'ira de'min Chavraya added - 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Nasan'.

(a) Rava needed to establish the Mishnah in the first Perek (regarding a 'Chashu') 've'Chulan she'Shachtu, va'Acherim Ro'in Osan, Shechitasan Kesheirah' like Rebbi Nasan - because a Cheresh, Shoteh and Katan do not have Kavanah, and that what they therefore do, they do without Kavanah.

(b) Having established the S'tam Mishnah ...

1. ... there like Rebbi Nasan, Rava nevertheless found it necessary to teach us the same here - because, unlike there, he did even mean to cut anything either.
2. ... here like Rebbi Nasan, he found it necessary to teach us the same there - even though, unlike here, the Shechitah was not even performed by someone who has Da'as.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav permits a Nidah who Toveled be'O'nes to her husband - but declares her Tamei as regards eating Terumah ...

(b) ... whereas Rebbi Yochanan - declares her Tamei for her husband too.

(c) Rava objected to Rav Yehudah's ruling, on the grounds that if the Tevilah permits the woman to her husband - (which is a Chiyuv Kareis, incorporating the punishment of dying childless [see Gilyon ha'Shas]), then 'Kal va'Chomer it ought to permit her to eat Terumah (which is only a Chiyuv Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim).

(d) Rav Nachman answered him - that the criterion is not, the severity of the sin, but the fact that Terumah, which is a form of Kodshim, requires Kavanah, whereas being with her husband is Chulin, and Chulin does not.

(a) The Mishnah in Mikva'os rules that a wave comprising forty Sa'ah, that detached itself from the sea, and fell on a person and on vessels - renders them Tahor.

(b) When Rav Nachman extrapolates 'Adam Dumya de'Keilim' - he means that the Tana compares the person to the vessels, and that like *they* have no Kavanah, neither does *he*, ...

(c) ... a proof that Tevilas Chulin does not require Kavanah.

(d) We refute Rav Nachman's proof (to say 'Keilim Dumya de'Adam') - by establishing the Mishnah where the person was anticipating the wave falling on him ('Yoshev u'Metzapeh')', and likewise, falling on the vessels.

(a) What problem with establishing the Mishnah by 'Yoshev u'Metzapeh' is - that the ruling than appears to be obvious, and does not require a Mishnah.

(b) We answer that the Tana needs to teach us that we do not decree on account of a Chardelis shel Geshamim - a torrent of rain flowing down the mountainside in the form of a stream (some refer to it as 'Hardelis' [because it flows from the source on the mountain), which is not a Kasher Tevilah.

(c) Tevilah in a Chardelis shel Geshamim is not Kasher - because it does not contain forty Sa'ah in one location.

(d) Alternatively, he is teaching us that we do not decree 'Rashin - (Toveling at the foot of the wave (as it reaches the ground) Atu Kipin' (on account of Toveling in the middle (the section that is in the air, and that resembles an arch).

(e) The source for the prohibition of Toveling in the 'Kipin' of a wave is - a Beraisa, which invalidates it - because one cannot Tovel in the air.

9)

(a) If fruit falls into a stream, and a Tamei person stretches his hand into the water to retrieve it, the Mishnah in Machshirin declares his it Tahor - and (seeing as he was not interested in the water), the fruit is not 'be'Chi Yutan' (Muchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah).

(b) If, on the other hand, he were to stretch his hand into the water in order to wash it, then the hand would be Tahor, but the fruit would be 'be'Chi Yutan' - because he has now demonstrated (albeit retroactively) that he wants the water.

(c) We learn from this Mishnah - that Tevilah for Chulin does not need Kavanah.

(a) Bearing in mind that 'Huchzak' means 'had Kavanah', Rava extrapolated from the Beraisa 'Taval le'Chulin Ve'huchzak le'Chulin Asur le'Ma'aser' - that if he did not have Kavanah for Chulin, one is not Tahor for Chulin either (a Kashya on Rav Nachman).

(b) Rav Nachman however, explained that the Tana was not coming to preclude 'Lo Huchzak le'Chulin', but - to teach us that even if a person has Kavanah for Chulin, it does not help for Ma'aser (until he has specific Kavanah for Ma'aser).

(c) And he explained the Beraisa 'Taval ve'Lo Huchzak Ke'ilu Lo Taval' to mean that he did not have the intention to Tovel for eating Ma'aser. Rava initially thought - that this was a Dochek ...

(d) ... until he discovered a Beraisa in support of Rav Nachman, forcing him to retract.

(a) Abaye asked Rav Yosef whether the Beraisos that Chulin do not require Kavanah, do not pose a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan - who stated earlier that Tevilas Nidah, even for her husband, requires Kavanah.

(b) He replied that Rebbi Yochanan holds like 'Tachboses ...

1. ... Rishonah' - takes place before the seven days, when the garment requires seclusion.
2. ... Sheniyah' - after the seven days, assuming that the signs of the plague have disappeared.

(c) Rebbi Yonasan ben Yosef learns from the Pasuk "Ve'chubas Sheinis Ve'taher - that the second washing, just like the first one (by which the Torah writes "Ve'tzivah ha'Kohen Ve'chibsu"), must be performed with Kavanah.

(d) From " ... Ve'taher", he learns - that the second washing does not however, require the Kavanah of the Kohen.

(a) Rav Shimi bar Ashi asks on Rebbi Yochanan from our Mishnah 'Naflah Sakin Ve'shachtah ... Pesulah - from which we extrapolated 'Ha Hipilah Hu, Kesheirah, from which we see that Shechitas Chulin does not require Kavanah.

(b) Rava answers that even Rebbi Yonasan ben Yosef will concede that Shechitas Chulin is different - because the Torah invalidates 'Mis'asek' by Kodshim (i.e. Shechting them without Kavanah [from "li'Retzonchem Tizbachuhu"]), implying that the equivalent by Chulin is Kasher.

(c) The Rabbanan - concede that Chulin does not require Kavanah to Shecht, only to cut.

(d) Rava proves Rebbi Nasan right from the Pasuk "Vezavachta" (in connection with Shechitas Chulin) - in which case, either one requires Kavanah for Shechitah or one doesn't, and if one doesn't (like Rebbi Nasan), then there is no source that necessitates Kavanah to cut.

(a) When we spoke earlier of Nidah she'Ne'ensah ve'Tavlah, we cannot be referring to where her friends Toveled her against her will - because that is considered Kavanah, as we learned ...

(b) ... in the Mishnah in Nidah, which rules that with regard to a Chareshes, a Shotah, a blind Kohenes or one who is demented, if other women inspect them and Tovel them - they are permitted to eat Terumah.

(c) Rav Papa therefore establishes the case of 'Nidah she'Ne'ensah', according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Nasan - where she fell from a bridge.
2. ... the Rabbanan - where she entered a river in order to cool herself and slipped in the water and Toveled.