Previous daf

1)

(a) When Rav Kahana asked Rav ...

1. ... whether a cat is Doreis, he replied - that even a weasel is.
2. ... whether a weasel is Doreis, he replied - that even a cat is not.
3. ... whether a cat and a weasel are Doreis or not - he replied that a cat is Doreis but a weasel is not.

(b) We interpret ...

1. ... his first statement - with regard to birds.
2. ... his second statement - with regard to sheep and rams.
3. ... his third statement - with regard to lambs and kids.

(a) Rav Ashi asked whether other Tamei birds (besides those mentioned in our Mishnah) are Doreis or not (seeing as they too, are birds of prey). Rav Hillel quoted Rav Kahana as having ruled - that they are.

(b) The problem we have with that from our Mishnah is - that the Tana says 'u'Derusas ha'Netz be'Of ha'Dak' (implying that other small Tamei birds are not Doreis)?

(c) We answer this Kashya in two ways. One answer is that a Netz (a sparrow-hawk) is Doreis birds the same size as itself, whereas other Tamei birds are only Doreis birds that are smaller than themselves. Alternatively - a Netz is Doreis even birds that are larger than itself, whereas other Tamei birds are only Doreis birds of their own size.

(a) According to Rav Kahana in the name of Rav Shimi bar Ashi, a fox is not Doreis. When Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he related the episode of a fox - that clawed a sheep in the bathhouse of Beis Hini ...

(b) ... and the Chachamim ruled that the sheep was Tereifah.

(c) Rav Safra reconciles Rav Kahana with that - by amending the case from a fox to a cat.

(d) In the second Lashon, Rav Kahana cited Rav Shimi bar Ashi as saying that a fox is Doreis. Rav Safra reconciles this with Rav Dimi, who cited the Chachamim, who rules 'Ein Derusah' - by amending Rav Dimi's case (from a fox) to a dog, which is not Doreis ...

(e) ... as Rav Yosef maintains.

(a) When Abaye confines Derusah to ...

1. ... the Yad, he is coming to preclude - the Regel (the hind-leg).
2. ... a claw - he is coming to preclude the tooth (i.e. that biting does not have the Din of Derisah).

(b) The third condition that he adds for the Derisah to be effective - is that the animal must perform Derisah willingly (and not be'O'nes).

(c) The problem with Abaye's fourth condition 'Ein Derisah Ela me'Chayim' - is that it seems obvious, in light of the previous statement 'Ein Derisah Ela mi'Da'as'.

(d) What Abaye really means however, is (not that the animal, but) that the paw must be alive at the time that it is withdrawn from the victim's body, to preclude a case where it is withdrawn only it has been severed. Because the animal only injects its poison at the time of withdrawal, not at the time of clawing.

(a) If a lion enters a herd of oxen and a detached claw from its paw is discovered in one of the animal's backs, Rabah bar Rav Huna Amar Rav rules that the ox is not Tereifah - since the claws of the majority of lions that claw their prey do not normally become detached, and this one did, we assume it must have come out whilst it was scratching its paw against a wall (which is very likely to have happened [see also Tosfos DH 'Rov']).

(b) We query Rav's reasoning however, based on the fact that most oxen tend to scratch against walls - without ending up with lions' claws embedded in their backs, in which case, this ox must have must have been clawed by a lion.

(c) We resolve the query - by citing a principle of Rav, which we will discuss shortly 'Ein Chosheshin le'Safek Derusah' (which is what this case is).

(a) Abaye qualifies Rav's basic ruling, by differentiating between an actual claw and the mark of a claw (which is Tereifah). He qualifies ...

1. ... even Rav's ruling regarding the claw - by confining it to a fresh claw. If the claw is dry, then the ox is Tereifah, because dry claws tend to fall out easily, in which case the lion probably clawed it.
2. ... Rav's ruling regarding a claw that is still fresh - by confining to when only one claw is found embedded in the ox's back; but if they found two or three, then the ox is Tereifah.
3. ... this latter ruling - by confining it to where the five embedded claws are found in the shape of a paw. If they are not, then the ox is Kasher.

(b) Rav holds 'Ein Chosheshin le'Safek Derusah'. Shmuel says - 'Chosheshin'.

(c) They both agree that if we are not certain that the lion even entered the herd, 'Ein Chosheshin' and all the animals are Kasher - and the same applies in a case where ...

1. ... an animal attacked a flock of lambs and we are not sure whether it was a dog or a cat that attacked them.
2. ... a lion entered a herd of oxen, and both the lion and the oxen are silent - since it is not uncommon for the lion to befriend a herd of oxen.
3. ... the lion severed the head of one of the oxen - because then the lion's anger has abated, and it will do no further harm to the herd (this time round).
4. ... the lion is roaring and the oxen are lowing - because it sounds as if both the lion and the oxen are afraid of each other.

(d) Rav and Shmuel argue over a case - where the lion is silent and the oxen are lowing, which according to Shmuel, is a sign that the lion has clawed one of them, whereas according to Rav, it means that they are afraid that it will.

7)

(a) Ameimar rules like Shmuel 'Hilchesa Chosheshin le'Safek Derusah'.

(b) When Rav Ashi asked Ameimar what he did with Rav's opinion, he gave one of two answers. One of them was that he did not hold like Rav. Alternatively - Rav himself retracted from his original opinion.

(c) He supported this with an episode that took place in Neherda'a. When a basket-full of birds that had been attacked by a sparrow-hawk was brought before Rav - he sent it to Shmuel ...

(d) ... who subsequently broke their necks and threw them into the river.

(a) We try to prove from there that Rav conceded that Shmuel was right - because otherwise, why did he not declare them Kasher?

(b) On the other hand, assuming that he had retracted, he could not simply rule that they were Tereifah - because Neherda'a was Shmuel's territory, and Rav would not have issued rulings there.

(c) This proves that he retracted - because if he hadn't, he would not have sent the birds to Shmuel, even though Neherda'a was Shmuel's territory, seeing as in his opinion, the birds were permitted, and he knew that Shmuel would forbid them on the owners.

(d) According to the (preferred) text '*Ela* Asra di'Shmuel Havah' - we have proved nothing, because the only reason that Rav sent the basket before Shmuel, was because it was Shmuel's territory (irrespective of what he himself held).

(a) Shmuel did not ...

1. ... throw the birds into the river as they were (but made a point of breaking their necks first) - because he was afraid that they would escape and get caught by hunters, who would sell them to Yisre'elim.
2. ... leave them for twelve months to see whether they would survive or not (like the Din by Safek Tereifah, as we shall see later), and if they did, declare them Kasher - because there were a lot of birds involved, and he was afraid that the owner would not be able to control that none of would be taken and Shechted in the course of the year.
3. ... sell them to Nochrim - because they would then sell them to Yisre'elim.
4. ... break their necks and throw them on to the trash-heap - because he wanted to publicize his ruling, and throwing them into the river entailed more publicity.

(b) A goose entered among the canes growing in the river and emerged with its neck bloodied. The Safek was - whether the canes had pierced it (in which case it was a Safek Nekuvah) or a cat (and it was a Safek Derusah), which can be Tereifah even if it does not pierce the entire Veshet.

(c) Rav Ashi declared it Kasher - on the basis of the case where it is a Safek whether a cat attacked lamb or a dog, and which we ascribe to a dog and declare Kasher; so too here, we ascribe it to the canes (and as long as the hole had not pierced right through to the Veshet, the animals was Kasher.

(a) The B'nei Rebbi Chiya require examination of a Derusah's intestines. By 'a Derusah', they mean - either a Safek whether a lion clawed an animal, or even if we know that it did, but we are unsure whether it clawed it in a location that renders it Tereifah or not.

(b) Rav Yosef pointed out that the B'nei Rebbi Chiya had said nothing new, because Shmuel had already issued this same ruling - citing Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel.

(c) When Ilfa asked whether 'Yesh Derusah le'Simanim' or not, Rebbi Zeira cited Rav Chanan bar Rava - who said that the entire abdominal cavity requires Bedikah (which does not incorporate the neck area or the thighs), but then added 'even the Simanim, thereby resolving Ilfa's She'eilah.

(a) When Ilfa asked 'Simanim she'Nidaldelu be'Kamah' - he meant to ask what the Shi'ur is regarding Simanim that have been torn away from the neck in a number of places.

(b) Once again, Rebbi Zeira cited others who already dealt with Ilfa's She'eilah. Rabah bar bar Chanah ruled - that if those places total a majority, the animal is Tereifah. Otherwise not.

(a) This time it was Rav Ami on whom Rebbi Zeira made his comment. When Rav Ami asked 'Hismasmah Mahu' - he means to ask what the Din will be if the lion clawed the ox's thigh, and the flesh began to rot at that spot.

(b) And it was Rav Yehudah Amar Rav whom Rebbi Zeira quoted, who ruled that - as far the flesh that is adjacent to the intestines is concerned, the animal is Tereifah as soon as it turns red; whereas the flesh of the thigh only renders the animal Tereifah when it begins to rot.

(c) Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua defines 'Nismasmes' as - where the vet scrapes it away until he reaches healthy flesh (giving it the Din of 'Netulah'). This would render the animal a Tereifah by the Tzomes ha'Gidin (the junction of the nerves in the hind leg).

(d) When a lung was brought before Rav Ashi, which seemed normal whilst it was lying down, but which fell to pieces when they picked it up - he ruled that it was Tereifah, based on the ruling of Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua.

(a) Rav Nachman learns that if a thorn pierces right through to the abdominal cavity, the animal is Tereifah - because we are afraid that it punctured the intestines. Nor is there any point in performing Bedikah - because a small hole is not discernible in the intestines.

(b) A Derusah on the other hand, requires Bedikah - and is only Tereifah if the adjacent flesh has turned red.

(c) Rav Z'vid agrees with Rav Nachman's latter statement. Regarding Derusas ha'Simanim however, he rules - that the Simanim themselves must have turned red for the animal to be Tereifah ...

(d) ... because the Simanim are hard and, unless they have turned red, are not generally affected by Derisah.