Previous daf

1)

(a) If someone Shechts an animal with the intention of sprinkling its blood for Avodah-Zarah, Rebbi Yochanan declares it Pasul - because he holds 'Mechashvin me'Avodah la'Avodah' both by Kodshim and by Chulin (which we learn from Kodshim); whereas Resh Lakish, who declares it Kasher - holds 'Ein Mechashvin me'Avodah la'Avodah' (even by Kodshim [with the sole exceptions of Pigul and Chutz li'Mekomo] which is the classical case).

(b) They also argue by Behemas Kodshim - where someone Shechts a Korban li'Shemah, with the intention of sprinkling its blood she'Lo li'Shemah.

(c) In spite of having presented their Machlokes in the case of ...

1. ... 'ha'Shochet Lizrok Damah la'Avodas-Kochavim', they nevertheless need to repeat the Machlokes by 'Shachtah li'Shemah ... ' - to teach us that Resh Lakish does not even learn Kodshim from Kodshim (i.e. Pigul).
2. ... 'Shachtah li'Shemah ... ', they need to repeat the Machlokes by 'ha'Shochet Lizrok Damah la'Avodas-Kochavim' to teach us - that Rebbi Yochanan even learns Chulin from Kodshim.

(a) Rav Sheishes queries both Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish from Rebbi Yossi's 'Kal va'Chomer in our Mishnah. When the Tana says that by Chulin, a Machshavah does not render Pasul, he cannot mean this literally - because we know that a Machsheves Avodah-Zarah does invalidate.

(b) What he must therefore mean is - that it does render Pasul from one Avodah to another.

(c) Rav Sheishes now asks on ...

1. ... Resh Lakish from Rebbi Yossi 'u'Mah be'Makom she'ha'Machshavah Poseles be'Mukdashin' - which implies that by Kodshim at least, Mechashvin me'Avodah la'Avodah (even with a Machshavah other than Pigul, since he said 'Poseles', rather than 'Mefageles').
2. ... Rebbi Yochanan - from the other half of Rebbi Yossi's statement 'Makom she'Ein Machshavah Poseles', implying that by Chutz, Rebbi Yossi agrees that 'Ein Mechashvin me'Avodah la'Avodah'.

(a) We answer the Kashya on Resh Lakish - by establishing his Machlokes with Rebbi Yochanan before the latter (his Rebbe) had taught him our Mishnah, when he thought that Rebbi Yochanan's statement (Mechashvin me'Avodah la'Avodah bi'Fenim), was his own. But once he taught him the Mishnah, he immediately retracted.

(b) Rav Sheishes answers the Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan, by establishing Rebbi Yossi by the four Avodos - Shechitah, Kabalah, Zerikah and Holachah, all of which invalidate by other Pesulin [see Rashash on Rashi]) me'Avodah la'Avodah.

(c) And by 'Makom she'Ein Machshavah Poseles, be'Chulin', Rebbi Yossi means - that by Chulin, Machshavah does not invalidate by four Avodos, only by two, namely, Shechitah and Zerikah.

(a) Machshavah by the Shechitah and the Zerikah invalidate by Avodah-Zarah - because we have a Pasuk by each ("Zove'ach la'Elohim Yacharam" [Mishpatim] and "Bal Asich Niskeihem mi'Dam" [Tehilim], respectively) to teach us that they pertain to Avodah-Zarah, but not by the Kabalah and Holachah - where there is no such Pasuk.

(b) Neither does Machshavah invalidate by the Haktarah, which certainly pertains to Avodah Zarah - because even someone who burns Kodshim with the intention of eating them in the wrong time, does not invalidate them.

5)

(a) We cite a Beraisa in support of Rebbi Yochanan. The Tana there rules that in a case where someone Shechts an animal in order to sprinkle its blood or to burn its Cheilev for Avodah-Zarah - it is Zivchei Meisim (a proof that we even learn Chutz from P'nim regarding 'Mechashvin me'Avodah la'Avodah').

(b) In a case where he had such a Machshavah, but only after the completion of the Shechitah - he says that they declined to issue any ruling, not Isur and not Heter.

(c) And he suggested that they did not forbid the animal out of deference to the Rabbanan (who do not consider S'tam Machsheves Oved-Kochavim la'Avodas-Kochavim). And they did not permit it - in deference to Rebbi Eliezer, who does.

(d) We object to Rav Chisda's dual statements however, because ...

1. ... on the one hand, the Rabbanan might concede to Rebbi Eliezer that the Shechitah is Pasul - because the specific Machshavah for Avodah-Zarah (albeit only afterwards) that he had there, reveals his initial intention (whereas in our Mishnah, there was no specific Machshavah at all).
2. ... on the other hand, Rebbi Eliezer might concede to the Rabbanan that the Shechitah is Kasher - because unlike in the case in our Mishnah, the Beraisa is talking about a Yisrael (in which case we will perhaps not say 'S'tam Machshavah for Avodas-Kochavim (despite his Machshavah afterwards). Note, that we will make no effort to refute this Kashya. It therefore appears that we do Not agree with it.

(a) So Rav Shizbi establishes that they declined to permit it, in deference to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel. The principle of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel that he is referring to is - 'Hochi'ach Sofo al Techilaso' (that what a person says or does at a later stage reflects on his previous words or action).

(b) We cite the Mishnah in Gitin, which rules that if a healthy man asks the people present to write his wife a Get, they are not in fact, his Sheluchim, and the Get that they write is invalid - because he failed to say 'Kisvu u'Tenu' ('Write it and give it to her').

(c) When such a case actually occurred, and after they had already written the Get and given it to the man's wife, he subsequently climbed on to the roof and fell off and died, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel ruled - that if he jumped off the roof, then the Get is valid, whereas if the wind blew him off, it is not.

(d) We solve the problem, that the story with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel seems to contradict the Mishnah's initial ruling - by adding to the initial ruling 'Im Hochi'ach Sofo al Techilaso, Harei Zeh Get ... u'Ma'aseh Nami ... '.

(a) We try to prove from there - that this is the Raban Shimon ben Gamliel referred to by Rav Shizbi, who holds 'Hochi'ach Sofo al Techilaso'.

(b) We reject the proof however, on the grounds that this case is different than the case that we are trying to resolve - seeing as the man there initially said 'Kisvu', whereas the Shochet in our case said nothing until afterwards.

(c) So Ravina cites a Beraisa where Re'uven, a Yisrael on his death-bed, writes his property, including Avadim Cana'anim, to Shimon who is a Kohen and who declines to accept them. The Tana Kama permits the Avadim to eat Terumah - because in spite of Shimon's refusal to accept the property, Reuven's property now belongs to him.

(d) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel rules - that since Shimon declined to accept the property, it goes automatically to Reuven's heirs, who are Yisre'eilim, in which case - the Avadim are forbidden to eat Terumah.

(a) The problem with the Tana Kama's ruling is - why Shimon should acquire Reuven's property against his will.

(b) Rabah rules that if Shimon ...

1. ... refuses to accept Reuven's gift from the outset - then everybody agrees that he does not acquire the property.
2. ... accepts the gift, protesting only after receiving it that he does not want it - then everybody agrees that he has acquired it.

(c) And he establishes the Machlokes - when Reuven initially gives the Sh'tar to a third person in front of Shimon, on Shimon's behalf.

(d) The Chachamim hold that due to his initial silence, he has acquired the property; whereas according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - the fact that he protested upon receiving the Sh'tar, proves that he did not really want the gift in the first place ...

(e) ... and the reason that he was initially silent was because he saw no point in protesting, as long as the Sh'tar was in the hands of a third person.

10)

(a) The Arabs who came to Tzikunya gave the Jewish Shochtim some rams to Shecht - stipulating that the blood and the Cheilev must go to their god, whereas the Shochtim could keep the skin and the meat.

(b) Arabs require their animals to be Shechted - because they only eat meat that has been Shechted (even if the Shechitah takes place after it is dead).

(c) Rav Tuvi bar Rav Masna sent them to Rav Yosef to ask whether the skin and the flesh were permitted. To which he replied - that in light of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, who ruled like Rebbi Yossi, it is obvious that they were.

(d) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ivya asked Rav Ashi what the Din would be, according to Rebbi Eliezer, in a case where a Nochri gave a Shochet a Zuz for a piece of meat; whether the entire animal would be forbidden because of that one Zuz-worth or not. To which he replied - that it is forbidden, if the Nochri was a tough guy, whom the owner would not be able to pursuade to take back his Zuz, in which case his Kinyan in the Zuz-worth of meat would be absolute. Otherwise, it would be permitted.