Previous daf

1)

(a) We will learn later that if a needle is found in the folds of the Beis ha'Kosos (the paunch), 'mi'Tzad Echad Kasher' - because the other wall blocks any hole that the needle creates.

(b) If the needle pierced both walls however - the animal is Tereifah.

(c) In the first case, we try to extrapolate from the fact that no distinction is drawn between the direction the needle is facing - that we do not hold like Rav Ashi (who declares a needle in the liver Tereifah, if it is pointing inwards from the abdominal cavity, because it must have punctured the Veshet, the Keres or the Dakin before piercing the walls of the Beis ha'Kosos), preferring to assume that the needle entered the liver direct via the Simpon (just like we assume that it entered the Beis ha'Kosos directly via the Veshet in the current case).

(d) We reconcile this case with Rav Ashi - based on the fact that in the current case, we ascribe the needle in the Beis ha'Kosos to food that probably carried it in via the Veshet (seeing as we did not actually find the hole that it would inevitably have made), which we cannot do in Rav Ashi's case.

(a) If a needle is found in the Simpon of an animal's liver, Huna Mar b'rei de'Rav Idi declares it Tereifah - because he assumes that, after entering the Veshet, the needle pierced either the Veshet, the Keres or the Dakin, before entering the area of the liver.

(b) Rav Ada bar Minyumi declares it Kasher - because he assumes that the needle entered the Simpon of the Kaved via the Kaneh, which is close to it.

(c) When the case was sent before Ravina, he sided with Rav Ada bar Minyumi. In fact - he authorized the owner to claim Mar b'rei de'Rav Idi's coat (because the latter actually fed the meat in question to the dogs.

(a) Rav Ashi quoting Rav Kahana rules that if a date-pit is found in an animal's gall-bladder, it must have entered via the Simpon of the Kaved. It could not have puncture the Veshet to get there (in which case the animal would be Tereifah) - because a date-pit is not sharp enough to do that.

(b) And this applies even in a case where the date pit is simply too large to pass through the Simpon ha'Kaved - because we assume that the constant movement on the part of the animal will have enabled it to slip through, like larger objects are able to slip through a sieve when it is shaken, even though the hole would otherwise be too small for them to pass through.

(c) Rav Ashi does concede however - that if an olive-pit (which is sharper than that of a date) is found in the gall-bladder, we assume that it punctured the Veshet to get there, and the animal is Tereifah.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan explains that the lung is called 'Re'ah' - because it is good for one's eyesight (since the letters 'Re'ah' are equivalent to those of 'Re'iyah').

(b) This refers either to eating the lung on its own, or to eating it together with spices.

(c) According to Rav Huna bar Yehudah, whereas a goose costs one Zuz - its lung, four Zuzim ...

(d) ... a proof that the Segulah of the goose's lung works only when it is mixed with spices - because otherwise it would make no sense to pay four Zuzim for a lung, when the entire bird costs only one Zuz.

(a) Rav Acha bar Nasan assumes that a hole that is found in the area of a lung that has been handled by the Shochet was in fact made by the Shochet. This might refer to the chest cavity, which is extremely compact (and where he is likely to have made the hole with his nails). It might also refer - to any area that he is likely to have punctured, such as a hole that was made by a knife, or where the Shochet tore one of the pipes away with force.

(b) Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Mari rules - 'Lo Talinan'.

(c) We rule 'Talinan', and we cite the statement of Rav Shmuel b'rei de'Rebbi Avahu's father, who was one of Rafram main interpreters, to the same effect. When Rav Zutra b'rei de'Rav Mari heard of the latter's statement - he simply rejected it.

(d) Rav Mesharshaya supported the opinion of his grandfather, Rav Acha bar Nasan (Talinan) based on 'Ze'ev' - with reference to a wolf that ran away with the intestines and returned them punctured, and where we rule 'Talinan' (as we learned in the first Perek).

(a) Rav Yosef bar Dusta'i and the Rabbanan argue over worms that emerge from the lung - whether they emerged before the Shechitah (and the animal is Tereifah), or after it (and it is Kasher).

(b) The Halachah is - that they emerged after the Shechitah and the animal is Kasher.

(a) Our Mishnah cited Rebbi Shimon, who declares a hole in the lung Kasher until it reaches the area of the Simponos. Rabah bar Tachlifa Amar Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba qualifies this statement - by confining it to the Simpon ha'Gadol.

(b) When Rav Acha bar Aba stated that Rebbi M'loch Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi rules like Rebbi Shimon, Rav Nachman retorted - that if he was referring to 'Rebbi M'loch Arva'a' (who lived among the Arabs), then he ought to have quoted him 'Ein Halachah ke'Rebbi Shimon'.

(c) When, upon Rebbi Zeira's arrival in Eretz Yisrael, Rav Bibi quoted him Rebbi M'loch as having said 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Shimon', Rebbi Zeira testified that when he together with Rebbi Chiya bar Aba and Rav Asi visited Rebbi M'loch - in answer to their question what he had said, he replied 'Ein Halachah ke'Rebbi Shimon'.

(d) However, when Rav Bibi asked Rebbi Zeira for his tradition, he cited Rav Yitzchak bar Ami Amar Rebbi M'loch - who said 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Shimon'. (e) The Halachah is - 'Ein Halachah ke'Rebbi Shimon'.

(a) Rebbi Yitzchak bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Oshaya informs us that the Kohanim who had the Minhag to eat the Cheilev on the Keivah, based themselves on Rebbi Yishmael in the name of his fathers. He mentions specifically Kohanim (not to preclude Yisre'elim, but) - because, seeing as the Keivah is one of the gifts that are given to the Kohanim from all Chulin animals, they are the ones who generally eat it.

(b) The Si'man he gave to remind us that the lenient Tana is Rebbi Yishmael is - 'Yishmael the Kohen (Gadol) who assists the Kohanim'.

(c) We need to find a second ruling to fit this description - because one does not generally give a person a title for one act alone, only when there there is a second precedent for it.

(d) Following the Pasuk "Ko Sevarchu es B'nei Yisrael ... ", Rebbi Yishmael interprets "va'Ani Avorcheim" to mean - that whenever the Kohanim bless Yisrael, Hashem will bless them.

(a) According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, Rebbi Akiva explains the previous Pasuk - to mean that Hashem approves of the B'rachah that the Kohanim confer upon Yisrael.

(b) Rebbi Akiva learns that the Kohanim are blessed too - from the Pasuk in Lech-Lecha ''Va'avorchah Mevorchecha''?

(c) Rebbi Yitzchak bar Nachmeni considers Rebbi Yishmael's opinion as being advantageous to the Kohanim - inasmuch as their blessing is mentioned together with that of Yisrael rather than independently.

10)

(a) 'Rebbi Yishmael in the name of his fathers' (cited by Rebbi Yitzchak bar Nachmeini) is based on a Beraisa, where from the Pasuk in Vayikra "es ha'Cheilev Asher al Ha'Kerev" he includes the Cheilev on the Dakin, which entails - the fat that covers the first Amah of the intestines after they emerge from the Keivah.

(b) Rebbi Akiva holds - that it incorporates the Cheilev on the Keivah, and certainly that which is on the intestines.

(c) We ask from another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yishmael learns from the Pasuk, 'K'rum ve'Niklaf' - including even the Cheilev ha'Keivah (and certainly that on the intestines).

(d) Whereas Rebbi Akiva says 'K'rum ve'Niklaf ve'Tosav' - incorporating the Cheilev that covers the first section of the intestines, and the Cheilev on the Kerev, but not that which covers the Keivah (which is not 'spread like a garment' [since that is what 'Tosav' means] but a piece here and a piece there]).

(a) The problem now is - that Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva seem to have switched their opinions from one Beraisa to the other.

(b) Ravin in the name of Rebbi Yochanan resolves the problem - by switching their opinions in the first Beraisa.

(c) He amends specifically the first Beraisa and not the second - because the second Beraisa, which describes in greater detail how each opinion learns from the Pasuk, is presumably more accurate.

(d) And Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak justifies Rebbi Yitzchak bar Nachmeini's establishing the Minhag of the Kohanim like Rebbi Yishmael (who, we just concluded, does not hold like that) - by recalling that it was not Rebbi Yishmael that the Tana quoted but Rebbi Yishmael in the name of his fathers (even though Rebbi Yishmael himself does not agree with them).

(a) Rav rules that - whereas Shuman (Kasher Cheilev [by virtue of its tightness]) blocks a hole rendering the animal Kasher, Cheilev (which sits more loosely on the flesh), does not.

(b) Rav Sheishes - equates Cheilev with Shuman in this regard.

(c) The two sides to Rebbi Zeira's She'eilah (which follows the opinion of Rav), regarding whether the Cheilev of a Chayah blocks a hole or not are - that on the one hand, the fat of a Chayah is Kasher (like Shuman), whilst on the other, it sits loosely on the flesh (like Cheilev).

(d) Abaye objects to the She'eilah - since it is obvious that the criterion is the manner in which the fat covers the hole (and not whether it is Kasher or not).

(a) Besides the fact that Rav Sheishes permits a hole that is blocked by Cheilev, Rava adds - that the Torah takes pity on the money of a Jew, in which case, the animal ought certainly to be permitted.

(b) The source for this reason - lies in Hilchos Tzara'as Batim, where the owner of the stricken house takes all his vessels out of the house, before the Kohen declares it (together with its contents) Tamei.

(c) Rav Papa rejects Rava's ruling - based on the combination of the opinion of Rav and the fact that it is an Isur d'Oraysa.

(d) Menimin Kanduka (the jar-seller) appeared before Rava with a jar of honey - which had been left open and he wanted to know whether honey that is left uncovered is forbidden (due to the suspicion that a snake may have drunk from it).

(a) Besides the reason that the Torah takes pity on the money of a Yisrael, Rava permits honey that has been left uncovered, on the basis of a Mishnah in Terumos, where the Tana forbids wine, water and milk that are left uncovered, for fear that a snake drank from them, leaving some of its poison behind (implying that all other liquids are permitted).

(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak rejects this reason however - due to the combination of 'Rebbi Shimon (who disagrees with the Mishnah) and life-danger'.

(c) The Tana Kama in a Beraisa lists five liquids that are not subject to snake poison: brine, vinegar, olive oil - honey and fish-hash.

(d) The Rabbanan counter Rebbi Shimon's argument that he actually witnessed a snake drinking fish-juice in Tzidon - by claiming that that particular snake was demented.

(a) Rava asked Rav Nachman to concede that he was right regarding brine, based on what Rav Papa, Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua and the Rabbanan - who used to pour liquids from which a snake had drunk into brine.

(b) What makes brine different than other liquids - is the fact that it neutralizes snake venom.

(c) He also asked him to concede regarding honey - since Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar agrees with Rebbi Shimon.

(a) Rav Nachman rules that Cheilev which is shaped like a hat does not block a hole. According to some, this refers to Chiti de'Karkesha - the fat that covers the last section of the intestines.

(b) It is called 'Chiti', because it consists of little wheat-shaped pieces (rather than a collection of fat , as in most other areas of the body).

(c) Others interpret it as - 'Tarp'sha de'Liba' (the fat of the heart), which encases the heart, but does not block a hole in the heart or the lungs, even though it covers it.

(a) Rava heard from Rav Nachman two things 'Chimtza u'bar Chimtza' - (both situated in the Cheilev which covers the Keivah), 'Chad Sasim, ve'Chad Lo Sasim', but he could not recall which was which.

(b) Rav Huna bar Chin'na and Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Nachman explained which was which. Rav Tavos put it in a nutshell when he said 'Yafeh Ko'ah ha'Ben mi'Ko'ach ha'Av' - which means that the strength of the sons is better than that of the father (in other words, bar Chimtza saves, and Chimtza doesn't).

(c) In its own context (in Shevu'os), it means - that whereas a son can claim certain property without having to swear, the father cannot.