Previous daf

1)

(a) Rava rules that if one Shechted a Chulin animal together with the Parah Adumah, it is Pasul - because he performed another Melachah whilst Shechting it (which in tun, is Pasul because of Hesech ha'Da'as [taking one's mind off the Parah Adumah]).

(b) The second animal - is Kasher, since there is no reason to invalidate it.

(c) According to Rebbi Nasan, the same will apply if another animal was Shechted unintentionally together with the Parah Adumah. Despite the fact that there was no Hesech ha'Da'as, the Parah Adumah is nevertheless Pasul - because of the Pasuk in Chukas "Ve'shachat Osah", from which Chazal extrapolate "Osah", 've'Lo Osah va'Chavertah'.

(d) In this same case, the Rabbanan will hold - that the Shechitah of the other animal is Pasul, in which case that of the Parah is Kasher.

(a) Even though all these rulings seem to be obvious, Rav Papa is coming to teach us - that the Parah Adumah is Pasul, even in the middle case, according to Rebbi Nasan, in that "Ve'shachat Osah" precludes Shechting any animal simultaneously, and not just another Parah Adumah, as 've'Lo Osah va'Chavertah' implies.

(b) If as the Shochet is Shechting a Parah Adumah ...

1. ... he deliberately cuts a gourd - the Parah is Pasul, even according to the Rabbanan.
2. ... he cut a gourd inadvertently - the Parah is Kasher, even according to Rebbi Nasan.

(a) Our Mishnah rules that in a case where in the middle of the Shechitah ...

1. ... the Sochet's knife or his clothes fell and he picked them up, before continuing with the Shechitah - the Shechitah is Kasher, provided he did not delay for as long as it takes to Shecht, and the same applies in a case where ...
2. ... he sharpened the knife and became tired, and his friend came and concluded the Shechitah?

(b) The Shi'ur Shehiyah, according to Rebbi Shimon is - the time it takes to inspect the knife.

(c) Rav explains 'K'dei Shechitah' to mean the time it takes to Shecht another animal - and not the time it would have taken to complete the Shechitah that he already began.

(a) Rav Kahana and Rav Asi asked Rav exactly what he meant. Besides guaging the Shi'ur Shechitah by the time it takes to Shecht from scratch whichever animal he is Shechting, he might have meant - that Chazal give the standard Shi'ur Shehiyah as the Shechitah of an animal, even when Shechting a bird.

(b) Rav eventually replied Lechumra, like the first side of the She'eilah. Initially, he said that 'Lo Havah Badichna bei ba'Chavivi' by which meant - that he was currently not on good terms with his uncle (and Rebbe) Rebbi Chiya, and had therefore been unable to ask him the She'eilah.

(c) Shmuel ruled - leniently, like the second side of Rav Kahana and Rav Asi's She'eilah.

(d) When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he cited Rebbi Yochanan Lekula, too, whereas Rebbi Chanina gave the time it takes to bring another animal and Shecht it. The problem with that is - that seeing as bringing the animal depends where it is to begin with, this clashes with the principle 'Nasata Devarecha le'Shi'urim' (meaning that the Chachamim do not issue rulings that differ from situation to situation).

(e) Rav Papa therefore establishes the case over which Rebbi Chanina argues with Rebbi Yochanan as - whether, one adds to the time it takes to Shecht an animal, the time it takes to throw it to the ground (Rebbi Chanina) or not (Rebbi Yochanan).

(a) In Eretz Yisrael, they cited the opinion of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who is the most lenient of them all regarding animals. In addition to the Shi'ur of Rebbi Chanina, he requires the time it takes to lift the animal off the ground.

(b) And he gives the Shi'ur Shehiyah of ...

1. ... a small animal as - the time it takes to Shecht a small animal.
2. ... a large animal as - the time it takes to Shecht a large animal.
3. ... a bird as - the time it takes to Shecht a bird.

(c) Even though we normally rule like Rebbi Yochanan against Shmuel and certainly against Rav, in this case, we rule like Rav against Rebbi Yochanan - since Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina concurs with him, as we just learned.

(d) Rava rules - that if someone takes all day to Shecht an animal using a bad knife (with a blunt edge, but with no defects), the Shechitah is Kasher.

(a) Rava asked whether a number of Shehiyos combine to invalidate the Shechitah. The reason that he does not resolve this She'eilah with his previous statement is - because even though he is speaking there when the Shochet Shechts all day, it also speaks when he did not pause in the Shechitah.

(b) When Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Nasan asks 'Shahah be'Miy'ut Simanim Mahu' - he means that after having Shechted the majority of the two Simanim, the Shochet pauses before concluding the Shechitah (like we discussed earlier with regard to Chaladah).

(c) The She'eilah cannot pertain to the beginning of the Shechitah - because the Kanah cannot become Pasul at that stage, and the Veshet is Pasul 'mi'Mah Nafchach' (either because of Shehiyah or because of Nekuvas ha'Veshet).

(d) Consequently, if after Shechting the majority of the Simanim, the animal does not die immediately, the Shochet should either chop its neck with the knife or wait until it dies by itself (but not continue to Shecht it once he has stopped).

(e) The outcome of the She'eilah is 'Teiku', and 'S'feika d'Oraysa le'Chumra' as we have already explained.

(a) We have already discussed the Machlokes Rebbi Yesheivav and Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah. If the Shochet first Shechted the Veshet and then broke the Gargeres (Ikur) or vice-versa, or Shechted one of the Simanim and either waited until the animal died, or performed Chaladah on the second Si'man, Rebbi Yesheivav considers the animal a Neveilah. According to Rebbi Akiva - it is a Tereifah.

(b) Rebbi Yesheivav citing Rebbi Yehoshua, defines the distinction between a Neveilah and a Tereifah with regard to an animal that has been Shechted - inasmuch as if the Shechitah is Pasul, it is a Neveilah, whereas if the Shechitah is Kasher, and the animal dies through other means, then it is a Tereifah.

(c) In spite of the principle 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Akiva me'Chavero', we rule like Rebbi Yesheivav in this case - because Rebbi Akiva himself concedes that he is right.

8)

(a) The Mishnah in 'Eilu Tereifos', which lists Pesukas ha'Gargeres among the Tereifos, creates the problem with our Mishnah - in that our Mishnah considers Pesukas ha'Gargeres a Neveilah according to Rebbi Yesheivav, and if Rebbi Akiva concedes that, then who is the author of the Mishnah in 'Eilu Tereifos'?

(b) Rava resolves ...

1. ... this problem - by establishing our Mishnah when the Shochet Shechted the Veshet first, and then broke the Gargeres (rendering it the latter part of the Shechitah), whereas the Mishnah in 'Eilu Tereifos' when he broke the Gargeres first.
2. ... Rav Acha bar Huna's Kashya from our Mishnah itself, which refers to 'Pasak es ha'Gargeres ve'Achar-Kach Shachat es ha'Veshet' as a Neveilah - by attempting to amend 've'Achar-Kach Shachat es ha'Veshet' to 'u'Kevar Shachat es ha'Veshet'.

(c) Besides the fact that the Tana specifically says 've'Achar-Kach', Rav Acha bar Huna objects to Rava's answer - on the grounds that the Tana would them merely be repeating the previous case ('Shachat es ha'Veshet u'Pasak es ha'Gargeres').

(d) To resolve the two Mishnahs, Rava interprets 'Eilu Tereifos' - to mean La'av Davka Tereifos, but incorporating Neveilos too (as if the Tana had said 'Eilu Asuros'.

(a) Chizkiyah rules that an animal that one made a Gist'ra (by chopping in two at the neck or the back, as we learned in the first Perek) - is a Neveilah.

(b) Rebbi Elazar declares an animal whose thigh has been removed, a Neveilah - provided the entire thigh has was removed, plus a little bit of the hollow as well (as we learned there).

(c) And the reason that the Tana in 'Eilu Tereifos' declines to insert these two cases in the Mishnah is - because he only inserts cases where the animal is still alive, and will die only with the termination of the convulsions; whereas these two cases are considered Neveilos me'Chayim.

(a) Resh Lakish resolves the contradiction between the two Mishnahs by making it dependent upon - whether the Shochet Shechts the remainder of the Gargeres at the point where the break ends (the Mishnah in 'Eilu Tereifos') or at a different point (our Mishnah).

(b) And he interprets 'Eilu Tereifos' literally (not like Rava).

(c) Resh Lakish himself says elsewhere that if one makes a hole in the lungs after having Shechted the Gargeres (to which they are attached), the animal remains Kasher - because having concluded the Shechitah on the Gargeres, making a hole in any part of it after that can compares to making a hole in it after it has been removed and placed in a basket.

(d) This poses a Kashya on what he himself just said - since, by the same token, having broken the majority of the Gargeres, it is as if it had been removed and placed in a basket. Consequently, if the Shochet completed the Shechitah on the Gargeres at the point where the break ended - it would still be a Neveilah.

(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Mishnah in 'Eilu Tereifos' like Rebbi Akiva, who considers a P'sul in the Shechitah a Tereifah, in spite of the Seifa of our Mishnah, (where Rebbi Akiva retracted from that S'vara) - because it was learned before he retracted ...

(b) ... irrespective of the fact that the latter Mishnah is no longer correct - since the Tana'im tended to retain Mishnahs the way they were originally learned, without making the change that took place later (because they found it easier to remember that the Mishnah is not Halachah that to relearn the text).

(c) And we reconcile this with the principle 'Yesh Seider le'Mishnah', that we apply in one Masechta, by confining it to 'S'tam ve'Achar-Kach Machlokes' (or vice-versa) which had to appear in the right order, since we always go after the latter.

(a) Rava says that, according to Resh Lakish, in a case where one made a hole in the intestines (which are attached to the Veshet) after Shechting the Kaneh - the animal is Tereifah ...

(b) ... because the intestines are not connected to the Kaneh (as the lung is). Consequently, even if we do consider the Shechted Kaneh as if it was lying in a basket, it would not prevent a subsequent hole in the lung from turning the animal into a Tereifah (seeing as the animal is still alive).

(c) Rebbi Zeira objects to that - on the grounds that if a hole in the lungs will not affect the animal once the Kaneh has been Shechted, then neither will a hole in the intestines.

(d) To ask such a Kashya, Rebbi Zeira must ascribe Resh Lakish's ruling to the fact - that, once one Si'man has been Shechted, and the animal is only partially alive, we apply the principle 'Ein Tereifos le'Chatzi Chiyus' (an animal that is no longer fully alive cannot become a Tereifah).

(a) Rebbi Zeira himself asked whether, if an animal's intestines were holed after its Kaneh had been Shechted, going on to Shecht its Veshet would change its status from Neveilah to Tereifah or not. It might ...

1. ... indeed do so - due to the fact that the Shechitah of the first Si'man combines with that of the second one to be Metaher it from Tum'as Neveilah.
2. ... not however - because seeing as the Kaneh also permitted the animal to be eaten (bearing in mind that, at the time, the intestines had not yet been holed), whereas the Veshet no longer can, it cannot combine with the latter to be Metaher the animal from Tum'as Neveilah.

(b) And we connect this to the She'eilah of Ilfa, regarding a fetus which is found inside a Shechted animal, and which is normally permitted through the Shechitah of its mother. If however, the fetus stuck out its leg before its mother was Shechted - it (the leg) has the Din of a Tereifah Shechutah.

(c) Ilfa now asks what the Din will be if it sticks out the leg between the Shechitah of the Kaneh and the Veshet - whether the first Si'man will combine with the second to be Metaher the leg from Tum'as Neveilah or not, as we just explained in Rebbi Zeira's She'eilah.

(a) We conclude that the Shechitah of the first Si'man will indeed combine with that of the second, to render the leg in Ilfa's case, and the animal in Rebbi Zeira's, a Tereifah. But as regards eating - it is forbidden.

(b) We try to prove from there that Rebbi Zeira retracted from what he just said - since, if he didn't, making a hole in the intestines after the Kaneh has been Shechted, ought not to affect the animal's status.

(c) Rav Acha bar Rav rejected this proof however. Rebbi Zeira asked the She'eilah, he explains (in spite of his personal opinion) - according to Rava, who holds that a hole in the intestines after the Kaneh has been Shechted, does render the animal a Tereifah. According to him, he asks, will the Shechitah of the Veshet at least remove the Tum'as Neveilah.