Previous daf

1)

(a) Rava wanted to permit the fractured leg-bone of an animal which protruded from the leg, but most of which was covered half by flesh and half by tender Gidin (that were destined to become hard when the animal grew older), based on the ruling of Rebbi Yochanan - who considers such bones Basar, regarding the Korban Pesach.

(b) He also cited as an additional reason to declare the animal Kasher - because the Torah takes pity on the property of a Yisrael (that he should not suffer a financial loss).

(c) In addition to the fact that this was a question of an Isur d'Oraysa, Rav Papa queries Rava from Resh Lakish - who argues with Rebbi Yochanan there, and who holds that skin that is destined to become hard is not considered flesh (even whilst it is still tender).

(d) The problem we initially have with Rava's silence is why he declined to answer - that apart from three specific cases in Bava Basra, we always rule like Rebbi Yochanan against Resh Lakish (as he himself states there).

(a) The answer to the Kashya on Rava lies in a statement of Rebbi Yochanan himself, who, when Resh Lakish quoted the Mishnah in 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rotav' 'Or ha'Rosh shel Eigel ha'Rach', to prove that the tender skin of a young animal is considered Basar (regarding Tum'as Basar and Neveilos [even though it will eventually turn hard]) replied forcefully - that this Mishnah is an individual opinion, and is therefore not Halachah ...

(b) ... a proof - that Rebbi Yochanan retracted from his original opinion, in which case Rav Papa is justified in quoting Resh Lakish.

(a) When a tiny piece of leg-bone of an animal fell to the ground, Abaye - unsure of the Halachah, kept it back for three Yamim-Tovim, hoping to find out the Halachah by discussing the matter with other Talmidei-Chachamim who came to hear the Yom-Tov D'rashah.

(b) Rav Ada bar Masna advised the owner - to go and ask Rava b'rei de'Rav Yosef bar Chama (alias Rava), 'whose knife was sharpened (meaning that he was always prepared to answer all She'eilos).

(c) Based on our Mishnah 'Nishbar ha'Etzem Ve'yatza le'Chutz ... ', Rava ruled that - just like there, it all depended upon whether the majority was covered with flesh and skin, because, once the bone protrudes from the skin, what difference does it make whether it is still intact or whether it has fallen to the ground?

(a) Ravina asked Rava what the Din will be in a case where the Rov Basar that covers the fracture is Mislaket, Misroses or Mismasmes. 'Mislaket' means that the Rov Basar is in a number of locations, and 'Misroses' - that the flesh covering the area of the fracture is very thin.

(b) 'Mismasmes' means that the flesh became rotten, which Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua defines as - whatever the doctor cuts away with a knife.

(c) We also ask three She'eilos regarding the Basar even though it is entirely intact. We ask what the Din will be if it is either holed, split - or peeled from the bone.

(a) And we also ask what the Din will be if lower third of the Basar has been removed which we try to resolve from Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan's earlier statement 'Or Harei Hu ke'Basar' - implying that even where there is a gap between the bone and the skin that covers it, the bone is Kasher (likewise in our case).

(b) To refute that proof however, we establish the case - in the section of the bone where there is no Basar, and the skin actually sticks to the bone.

(c) Finally, we ask what the Din will be if most of the Basar is intact, but flesh in the shape of a ring has been cut away. We resolve the She'eilah by quoting Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, quoting the Chachamim and the doctors - who stated that making such cuts in the flesh where there is a wound, produces blood which helps the wounded flesh to stick together and heal.

(d) They qualify their statement however - by confining it to where metal is not used to make the incision. If it is, then on the contrary, it causes the wound to (become infected and) deteriorate.

(e) Rav Papa adds - that there must also be signs that the bone around the cut is beginning to stick to the flesh and heal.

(a) Our Mishnah - permits someone who doesn't find it sickening, to eat a Shilya (a placenta) that one finds inside a Shechted animal.

(b) Normally, it is not Mitamei Tum'as Ochlin. It is considered an Ochel however - once one specifically has in mind to eat it.

(c) In the event that the animal dies by itself - a Shilya is not Mitamei Tum'as Neveilos?

(a) If part of the Shilya emerged (before the Shechitah), it may not be eaten - because we are afraid that that part of the Shilya contained the baby's head, which renders the animal born, in which case it is no longer permitted with the mother's Shechitah.

(b) This is what the Tana means when he says 'Siman V'lad bi'Veheimah'. When he says 'Siman V'lad be'Ishah' - he means that the birth of part of a Shilya renders the woman Temei'ah Leidah mi'Safek.

(c) The Tana says that if a Shilya is ...

1. ... the Petter Rechem of an animal - one may throw it to the dogs.
2. ... the V'lad of a Kodshim animal - it must be buried, because the latter is Hekdesh (since the baby of Hekdesh is Kadosh whether it is a male or a female), whereas the former is not a Bechor mi'Safek, as we shall see in the Sugya.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Sa'aseh ke'Ma'aseihem" - that one should not practice the customs of the Nochrim.

(b) This incorporates the prohibition of burying the Shilya of Mukdashin by the crossroads, which the soothsayers promoted - to prevent the animal from having another miscarriage.

(c) We also learn from there that one may not - hang the Shilya in question on a tree (for the same reason).

(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Kol Beheimah ... (Osah) Tocheilu" - that one may eat a Shilya that one finds inside a Shechted animal.
2. ... "Osah (Tocheilu)" - that it is forbidden if part of the Shilya emerged before the Shechitah.

(b) Seeing as 'Ein Shilya be'Lo V'lad' is a fact, we do not really need a Pasuk to forbid the latter - in which case the cited Pasuk is merely an Asmachta.

10)

(a) Rebbi Yitzchak bar Nafcha asks whether the skin of a donkey that one cooked well (until it turned soft) is Metamei. The problem with this She'eilah, irrespective of whether he is referring to Tum'as Ochlin or Tum'as Neveilos is - that both rulings already appear in Beraisos.

(b) The Beraisa which discusses Tum'as Ochlin - lists Shilya together with Or.

(c) The latter is Metamei if one boiled it well, the former, if one has in mind to eat it.

(a) Besides skin, bones and nerves, the Beraisa which discusses Tum'as Neveilos includes - horns and hooves (none of which are Metamei Tum'as Neveilos).

(b) Rabah bar Rav Chana comments on this Beraisa - that the Tana is speaking even where he boiled them well with spices.

(c) We conclude that Rav Yitzchak bar Nafcha is referring to Tum'as Ochlin, and that Rebbi Yitzchak ben Nafcha finds it necessary to ask his She'eilah regarding the Din of a donkey skin, which might not be Mitamei Tum'as Ochlin, even if other animal skins are - because a donkey's skin is particularly disgusting.

(a) Rebbi Elazar qualifies the Din in our Mishnah 'Shilya she'Yatz'sah Miktzasah, Asurah ba'Achilah' - by confining it to where there is no baby inside the womb together with the remainder of the Shilya. But if there is, then we assume that the Shilya belongs to that baby.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan - forbids the Shilya either way, because he is afraid that perhaps there was a twin which, due to its tiny size, emerged undetected together with the Shilya.

(c) We query this version of the Machlokes, which presents Rebbi Elazar as the more lenient of the two opinions, from Rebbi Yirmiyah - who said that Rebbi Elazar is the more stringent opinion.

(a) So we amend the Machlokes in a way that Rebbi Yochanan holds like Rebbi Elazar in the first Lashon; whereas Rebbi Elazar now holds - that in spite of the baby still inside the womb, the Tana forbids the Shilya if it is not attached to it ...

(b) ... because he is afraid that there is a second baby - whose Shilya melted.

(c) The Beraisa that we cite in support of Rebbi Elazar rules that if a woman miscarried an animal, beast or bird together with its Shilya - then assuming that the Shilya ...

1. ... is attached to the baby, we do not suspect that there is perhaps a second baby, and the mother is Tahor (like the Rabbanan, who declare a woman who gives birth to a Beheimah ... , Tahor), provided it is a bloodless birth.
2. ... is not attached to the baby - she is Tamei Leidah (because we are afraid that there was a second baby, as we explained).

(d) And when the Tana says that we place on her the Chumra of two babies, we mean - that she has to keep fourteen days of Tum'ah, on the assumption (le'Chumra) that there was another baby and that it was a girl; whereas on the other hand, she has no days of Taharah, because we assume (le'Chumra) that there was no second baby.

(a) A 'Nidmeh' is - a baby animal that resembles a different species of animal than its mother (e.g. if a sheep gives birth to a baby in the form of a goat).

(b) Based on that, Rav Ika b'rei de'Rav Ami explains why the Tana permits throwing a Shilya that is the Petter Rechem of an animal to the dogs - since we now add the minority of animals that give birth to a Nidmeh to the fifty percent that give birth a female, to make a Rov that is not subject to Bechorah.

(c) Nevertheless, the Tana require a Shilya that is the baby of a Kodshim animal to be buried - because the baby of a Kodshim animal is Kadosh, irrespective of whether it is a male or a female.

(a) Abaye and Rava qualify the prohibition of Darkei ha'Emori - confining it to things that are not a cure, such as those mentioned in our Mishnah. Things that are, such as beverages, or medicine or even reciting Pesukim over a wound, are permitted.

(b) The Beraisa advises someone whose fruit-tree sheds its fruit prematurely - to load it with stones and paint it red.

(c) By ...

1. ... loading it with stones - one weakens the energy that is the root of the problem (see Rabeinu Gershom).
2. ... painting it with red paint - one highlights it, to make people aware of the problem, so that they should Daven for the tree's well-being.

(d) The source for this is the Pasuk in Tazri'a "ve'Tamei Tamei Yikra" - what a Metzora cries out as he leaves the town (so that people should take pity on him and Daven on his behalf.

(e) Ravina explains - that the custom to hang a bunch of dates on a date-palm that shed its fruit prematurely (that one does for the reason that we just explained) follows the opinion of the same Tana, who permits it, even though it resembles Darkei ha'Emori.

Next daf