Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah now discusses the Tereifos of a bird, which basically - are equivalent to those of an animal ...

(b) ... and the Tana only mentions those which we would have thought are different (as we will now explain).

(c) The Tana mentions Nekuvas ha'Veshet on account of Pesukas ha'Gargeres. The reason that he needs to mention ...

1. ... 'Pesukas ha'Gargeres' is - because, due to the bird's weak vitality (as is evident by the fact that, unlike an animal, it dies with the Shechitah of only one Siman), we would otherwise have thought that the Shi'ur Tereifus regarding the Gargeres of a bird is a Mashehu, like that of the Veshet.
2. ... 'Hiksah Chuldah al Roshah' is because - for the same reason, we would have thought that the bird becomes Tereifah even without the membrane having been pierced.

(d) In the latter case, the Tana must be speaking in a case where the weasel bit the bird and not where it clawed it - because in the later case, the bird would be a Derusah, and the bird would be Tereifah even if the skull was not pierced, as we learned earlier.

(a) The Tana includes 'Nikav ha'Kurkevan' and 'Nikvu ha'Dakin'. The 'Kurkevan' and the 'Dakin' are - the bird's stomach (the gizzard) and its intestines, respectively.

(b) The Tana needs to include 'Nikvu ha'Dakin' because of the Seifa 'Yatz'u B'nei Me'ehah - ve'Lo Nikvu, Kesheirah'. Once again, if not for the Mishnah, we would have thought that it is Tereifah.

(c) The Tana discusses a bird that fell into the fire (and did not die) - though its innards shrunk.

(d) The Tana rules that in a case where the stomach was found to be ...

1. ... yellow - the bird is Tereifah.
2. ... red - it is Kasher.

(a) The Tana declares a bird which someone trampled on, which he banged against a wall or which an animal trampled on, and which is still convulsing - Safek Derusah.

(b) The bird will be Kasher - if it survives twenty-four hours.

(c) Rav, Shmuel and Levi all hold that if a bird has been bitten by a weasel on its head, one examines it - by placing one's fingers inside the mouth and pressing the palate upwards. If the membranes have been pierced, then the brain will emerge through the hole, and the bird is Tereifah.

(d) This will apply even according to those who declare an animal whose brain has been punctured Tereifah, even if only the upper membrane has been punctured - because the lower membrane is so weak that once the upper one is pierced, the pressure applied by the examiner's fingers will cause it to tear.

(a) Initially, Ze'iri maintained that a weasel's bite cannot be examined - because its teeth are needle thin and even assuming that it pierced the bird's membranes, the brains will not come out through the hole.

(b) In answer to the Kashya that the thinness of the holes does not justify Ze'iri's statement, Rav Oshaya explains - that the weasel's teeth are also bent, so that the holed skull pressing against the punctured membrane, block each other, preventing the brain from emerging.

(c) After Ze'iri arrived in Neherda'a - he sent a message to Bavel that his previous ruling was incorrect, and that in fact, Resh Lakish permitted examining with the hand, but not using a nail ...

(d) ... which one does - by passing a nail over the surface of the skull and watching for the nail to drop into the hole as it passes over it, and which Resh Lakish forbade - because if one is not careful, one is likely to create a hole that was not previously there, and declare a perfectly Kasher bird Tereifah (thereby causing a fellow-Jew a monetary loss).

(a) Rebbi Yochanan - permits examining the bird with a nail as well.

(b) This is in fact, a Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Nechemyah (see Tosfos DH 've'Rebbi Yochanan'). The one who searched ...

1. ... with his hand (from the inside) said to the one who searched using a needle (from the outside) - 'How long will you continue to 'eat up' Jewish money'?
2. ... using a needle said to the one who searched with his hand - 'How long will you continue to feed Yisrael Neveilos (which we amend to Tereifos [like Ze'iri explained earlier])?

(c) We ascertain that Rebbi Yehudah is the one who used to examine with his hand (and Rebbi Nechemyah, using his nail) - because Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar quoted him to that effect in a Beraisa.

(d) To reconcile Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar's ruling with the continuation of the Beraisa, which renders a bird Tereifah if the skull is pierced, even if the membrane is not (which means that it cannot be examined) - we establish this latter ruling with regard to water fowl (whose membrane is so thin, that once the skull is punctured, the membrane is bound to follow suite).

(a) The one distinction that a Beraisa cited by Levi, draws between the Tereifos of animals and the Tereifos of birds - is that if the skull of the former is punctured, but not the membrane, it is Kasher; whereas the latter is Tereifah.

(b) He did not include a hole in the Meses and the Beis ha'Kosos (which renders an animal Tereifah, but not a bird) - because a bird does not have a Meses and Beis ha'Kosos, and he is only concerned with Halachic distinctions (not anatomical ones).

(c) When Rav Nachman asked Rav Anan how to reconcile Rav and Shmuel, both of whom are quoted as permitting examining a bird with the hand, with Levi's Beraisa - he also established the latter by water fowl (e.g. a duck).

(a) When Rav Chana sent Rav Masna a chicken with a hole in the skull, but with the membranes intact - Rav Masna declared it Kasher.

(b) He too, reconciled his ruling with Levi's Beraisa, which declares such a bird Tereifah - by establishing it with regard to water fowl.

(c) Rav Shizbi would examine a bird (that was bitten in the head by a weasel) by holding the brain up to the sun. When we say that ...

1. ... Rav Yeimar would examine it with water, we mean - either that he would pour water in to the neck, and check whether it poured out of the location of the wound or not, or that he would pour water into the hole and pour it out again. If the water was white, it meant that the brain had been pierced and had now mixed with the water; whereas if it came out clear, it meant that it hadn't.
2. ... Rav Acha bar Ya'akov would examine it with a straw, we mean - that he passed a straw over the outside, like we learned above regarding a needle.

(d) Rav Shizbi compares our geese to water fowl - because they are constantly in the water.

8)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan citing Rebbi Yossi ben Yehoshua gives the Shi'ur of yellowness of the innards that renders a bird that fell into the fire, Tereifah - as a Mashehu (like the Shi'ur of a puncture in the same area).

(b) Initially, Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi objected to his son's She'eilah as to what the Din will be if the lower end of the liver (that adjoins the intestines) has turned yellow - on the grounds that if it was missing, the animal would be Kasher, so why should the fact that it has turned yellow be any worse?

(c) Rava however, upheld the She'eilah - based on the assumption that once the liver adjoining the intestines has turned yellow, it is a clear sign that the animal fell into the fire, and that the intestines shrunk (in which case the bird is Tereifah).

(a) When Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi sent Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar b'Rivi a chicken whose intestines were yellow - the latter declared it Kasher.

(b) When our Mishnah, which declares a bird with yellow innards (that fell into the fire) Tereifah - it is referring (not to the intestines, which are naturally yellow, but) to the gizzard, the heart and the liver, which are naturally red.

(c) And when Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef sent Rebbi Avahu a chicken whose intestines were red - he declared it Tereifah ...

(d) ... because when our Mishnah declares a chicken with red innards, Kasher, that refers specifically to the three organs of which we just spoke (because whatever is naturally red, is Tereifah when it turns yellow, and vice-versa).

(a) Rav Shmuel bar Chiya Amar Rebbi Mani rules that if the gizzard, the heart or the liver of a bird fell into a fire and turned yellow - it will nevertheless be Kasher if it turned red once more after it is cooked ...

(b) ... because it only turned yellow in the first place - due to the smoke.

(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak extrapolates from Rebbi Mani's ruling that if the same three limbs did not immediately turn yellow, but did, after they were cooked - the animal is Tereifah.

(d) We repudiate Rav Ashi, who (based on Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak), forbids eating a bird that fell into the fire, and whose three limbs did not turn yellow, before cooking them to see whether or not, they will turn yellow - on the grounds that we do not assume defects that we do not see.

12)

(a) Our Mishnah listing the cases that are Kasher by a bird, begins with 'Nikvah ha'Gargeres O she'Nisdekah'. The bird will be Kasher ...

1. ... if it is struck by a weasel on its head - in a location which does not normally render it Tereifah (i.e. not in the vicinity of the brain).
2. ... if its intestines spilled out (and were returned) - as long as they are not punctured.

(b) The Tana Kama declares the bird Kasher - if its Zefek (crop) is punctured.

(c) Rebbi is even more lenient - permitting the bird even if the Zefek has been removed.

(d) The Tana rules that a bird with broken wing-bones, broken legs or with its plumage removed is - Kasher.

(e) Rebbi Yehudah declares one minus the fluff next to its skin - Tereifah.

(a) The Beraisa describes how Rebbi Sima'i and Rebbi Tzadok, on their way to Lud, spent Shabbos in Ono. They were going to Lud - in order to make that year a leap-year.

(b) The Tana records 'Horu be'Tarpachas ke'Rebbi be'Zefek'. 'Tarpachas' is - the animal's womb (i.e. the Eim).

(c) This might mean that they forbade an animal with its womb removed, but permitted a bird minus its crop, like Rebbi. Alternatively, it means - that they permitted a bird with its womb removed (like Rebbi permitted one without its crop), but they did not agree with Rebbi's ruling.

(d) The outcome of the She'eilah is - Teiku.

(a) Rabah (or Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi) gave the roof of the crop - the Din of the Veshet.

(b) Rav Bibi bar Abaye defines 'the roof of the crop' as - the top of the crop where it begins to narrow as it runs into the Veshet.

(a) Our Mishnah permits a bird whose intestines have come out (and are returned), as long as they are not punctured. Rebbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak qualifies this ruling - by confining it to where the intestines are returned exactly as they came out, but if they were turned upside-down, either entirely or in part, the bird is Tereifah.

(b) We learn this from the Pasuk "Hu Ascha Va'yechonenecha" - which implies that man is made with a base, and that the position of the parts that sit on the base may not be tampered with.

(c) Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, learns from this Pasuk - that Hashem created Yisrael fully established, and that its Kohanim, its prophets, its princes and its kings all come from within its ranks.

(a) When that Nochri saw a man falling off a roof and his intestines spill out - he fetched his son and pretended (using sleight of hand) to slaughter him in front of his father.

(b) He did that - so that the father would sigh deeply, and inhale his intestines in the process.

(c) The Nochri did not return the intestines himself - because he was afraid to tamper with the intestines, as we just learned.

(d) He succeeded in his mission, and stitched up the wounded man's open stomach.