Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah includes the Parah Adumah amongst the things Rebbi Shim'on considers an unfit Shechitah. We query this however, from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Shimon declares that a Parah is Mitamei Tum'as Ochlin. The problem with that is - that Rebbi Shimon himself clearly states (in the first Perek of Bechoros) that Isurei Hana'ah are not subject to Tum'as Ochlin.

(b) The reason that it nevertheless is, is because it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher, which Resh Lakish explains to mean - that at any time prior to the Parah's Shechitah (even as it is being placed on its Ma'arachah [the pile of wood on which it is to be burned]) it may be exchanged for a better cow, should they find one, at which point it is fit to be become food ...

(c) ... and Rebbi Shimon himself holds 'Kol ha'Omed Lipados ke'Paduy Dami' (anything that stands to be redeemed, it is as if it has been redeemed already).

(d) Even though the Parah Adumah is an Av ha'Tum'ah in its own right, it nevertheless needs to adopt Tum'as Ochlin - in a case where a piece of the cow is covered with dough that is less than a k'Beitzah, which it will complement to make up the Shi'ur k'Beitzah, provided it is considered food, but not if it is not (even if it is an Av ha'Tum'ah).

(a) Based on the fact that the Shechitah of a Parah Adumah is potentially a Kasher Shechitah, even according to Rebbi Shimon (as we just explained), Rav Sh'man bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan concludes - that we must erase 'Paras Chatas' from the Mishnah (from the list of things that the Tana considers 'Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah').

(b) The Mishnah in Sotah says that in a case where the murderer is found before the Eglah Arufah's neck is broken - 'Teitzei ve'Tir'eh be'Eider' (it is permitted to re-join its herd).

(c) Based on the fact that the Shechitah of an Eglah Arufah is potentially a Kasher Shechitah no less than that of a Parah Adumah, Resh Lakish Amar Rebbi Yanai concludes - that we need to erase 'Eglah Arufah from the Mishnah, too.

(a) In another statement, Rebbi Yanai said that he had forgotten which stage renders the Eglah Arufah forbidden. His colleagues however, reminded him - that it is being taken down to the valley of virgin soil prior to its being killed.

(b) The problem this creates with our previous answer is - that Rebbi Yanai (whom Resh Lakish quoted), could then have left Eglah intact in our Mishnah, and established it after it was taken down to the valley, in which case it is indeed Asur be'Hana'ah.

(c) Rebbi Pinchas b'rei de'Rav Ami attempts to resolve the problem - by establishing the author of this answer as Resh Lakish in his own name (and not In the name of Rebbi Yanai).

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the birds used for the purification of the Metzora too, are Asur be'Hana'ah from the time of Shechitah (the bird that is Shechted, that is) - but not the bird that is sent alive into the fields.

(b) Resh Lakish forbids both birds already from the time that they are designated, both of which are Asur until the moment that the one bird is sent away - when it becomes permitted (because otherwise, how would one know that it is Asur be'Hana'ah?)

(c) Resh Lakish's source for the prohibition from such an early stage is - from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from Eglah Arufah, a proof that even Resh Lakish forbids an Eglah Arufah during its lifetime.

(d) So Rebbi Chiya bar Aba finally establishes 'Eglah Arufah Einah Mishnah' - like Rebbi Yochanan (who also erased Parah Adumah from the Mishnah).

(e) And we reconcile Resh Lakish with the Mishnah in Sotah (which we quoted earlier) 'Nimtza ha'Horeg ad she'Lo Te'aref ha'Eglah, Teitzei ve'Tir'eh be'Eider' - by turning it into a Machlokes Tana'im.

(a) Our Mishnah rules that if two people purchase a cow and its child - then whoever made the first purchase has the first right to Shecht.

(b) Nevertheless, if the second purchaser Shechted his animal first - his Shechitah is valid, and the first purchaser is forbidden to Shecht his animal on the same day.

(c) When Rav Yosef says that our Mishnah is written 'le'Inyan Dina', he means - that the Tana is merely stating that (based on the fact that the first purchaser would have definitely had the right to Shecht before the owner, had the latter not sold the second animal) this is what Beis-Din would rule should they come to ask a She'eilah. However, the second purchaser has done nothing wrong by Shechting first. (d) In fact, when the Beraisa states ...

1. ... 'Zariz', he means - that he is perfectly entitled to take the initiative and quickly Shecht.
2. ... 've'Niskar' - and he has gained fresh meat for that day.

(a) Our Mishnah rules that if someone first Shechts ...

1. ... a cow and then its two children - he receives two sets of Malkos.
2. ... the two children and then the cow - he receives only one set of Malkos.

(b) The Tana Kama also rules that in a case where one first Shechts a cow, then its ...

1. ... daughter, and then its grandchild - he receives two sets of Malkos.
2. ... grandchild and then its daughter - he receives only one.

(c) Sumchus rules that even in the latter case - he receives two sets of Malkos.

(d) The Beraisa learns from the fact that the Pasuk (in connection with Oso v'Es Beno ["Lo Sishchatu be'Yom Echad"]) uses the plural form - that one is Chayav, not only for 'Oso ve'es' B'no', but also for 'B'no ve'Oso'.

(a) The case is equivalent to the third case in our Mishnah, where - he Shechted a cow, its daughter and its grandchild on the same day (since there is no way that they will both be Chayav, if there are only two animals).

(b) We know that it is speaking about three generations and not about a mother and its two children, where each person Shechted one of the children - because that is obvious.

(c) We query this Limud however - in that the Torah needs to use the plural form to teach us that it is not necessary for the same person to Shecht both animals (which is what we would have thought had the Torah written "Lo Sishchat").

(d) And we answer - that to teach us that, the Torah could have written 'Lo Yishacheitu'. "Lo Sishchatu" therefore, teaches us that both the person who Shechts the animal's mother and the one who Shechts its child, are Chayav.

8)

(a) Abaye asked Rav Yosef whether Sumchus reason (for obligating two sets of Malkos in our Mishnah for Shechting the daughter after the mother and the grandchild) is because he holds that someone who eats two k'Zeisim of Cheilev in one He'elam receives two sets of Malkos. 'In one He'elam' means - without remembering in between.

(b) A Chiyuv Chatas and a Chiyuv Malkos - have the same Din in this regard (i.e. a second animal be'Meizid is equivalent to a second k'Zayis be'Shogeg.

(c) If that is indeed Sumchus' reason, then the reason that the Tana presents his Machlokes with the Rabbanan in our Mishnah (where the Chiyuv comes from two different bodies) is - to teach us that even there, the Rabbanan are only Mechyev one set of Malkos.

(d) In fact, in the Reisha, where one Shechted the cow after its two children - Sumchus argues with the Tana Kama, too.

(a) The alternative interpretation in Sumchus is - that he only obligates two sets of Malkos in our Mishnah, because the Chiyuv comes from two different bodies (but not in the case of two k'Zeisim of Cheilev).

(b) Rav Yosef replied - like the first side of the She'eilah, that he is Chayav two Chata'os, even in the case of two k'Zeisim of Cheilev.

(c) And to prove it, he cited a Beraisa 'ha'Zore'a Kil'ayim Kil'ayim, Lokeh'. Apart from the fact that it would otherwise be obvious, the Tana must mean that he is Chayav two sets of of Malkos - because seing as for one planting of Kil'ayim one will already receive Malkos, why does the Tana then write 'Kil'ayim, Kil'ayim' implying that he is only Chayav for planting twice.

(d) Neither can the Tana be referring to a case where he transgressed on two occasions after two separate warnings - because that we already know from the Mishnah say in Nazir, which rules that if a Nazir continues to drink after he receives a second warning, he will receive two sets of Malkos.

(a) Rav Yosef then tries to prove that the author must be Sumchus - because if the Rabbanan afgue with Sumchus in oour Mishnah, where the Isurin come from two seperate bodies, then they will certainly argue there, where they come from one and the same body.

(b) We refute Rav Yosef's proof however, by establishing the Beraisa like the Rabbanan, and in a case where there were two warnings. And the Chidush is - that if one plants first wheat together with grape seeds, and then barley, one is Chayav two sets of Malkos.

(c) And the Beraisa actually comes to preclude from a ruling by Rebbi Yashiyah - who maintains that one is only Chayav for planting wheat, barley and grape seeds all with one throw of the hand.

(a) So Rav Yosef tries to prove his point from a Mishnah in Gid ha'Nasheh, where the Tana Kama declares someone who eats a k'Zayis from both the right Gid ha'Nasheh and the left one, Chayav two sets of Malkos. According to Rebbi Yehudah however - he is only Chayav one.

(b) The Mishnah cannot be speaking where someone ate them one after the other, with a separate warning for each one - because then, why would Rebbi Yehudah, who holds 'Hasra'as Safek lo Sh'mah Hasra'ah', then be Chayav Malkos at all?

(c) We learn Rebbi Yehudah's opinion regarding Hasra'as Safek from his ruling in a case where someone strikes or curses two men who are both Safek Aviv - where his mother married again within three months of her first husband's death, and he was born nine months later (in which case we do not know whether he is ninth month baby from her first husband, or a seventh month baby from her second one.

(a) The Tana Kama rules there - that he is Chayav.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah - concedes that he is Chayav, but only if he struck or cursed them both simultaneously, but not if he did so one after the other.

(c) We therefore conclude that the Mishnah in 'Gid ha'Nasheh' must be speaking when he eats the two Gidin in one go and with one warning. Rav Yosef therefore thinks that the author must therefore be Sumchus - because according to the Rabbanan, if one is Patur from a second set of Malkos, even when the Isur stems from two bodies, then how much more so will he Patur by a Safek, when the Safek does not.

(d) We refute this proof too, however, by establishing the Mishnah where he ate one Gid after the other, in which case the author can even be the Rabbanan of Sumchus. And we will reconcile Rebbi Yehudah's opinion with his opinion in Nazir ('Hasra'as Safek Lo Sh'mah Hasra'ah') by establishing him like the other opinion cited in his name, where he holds Hasra'as Safek Sh'mah Hasra'ah.

(a) The source for that is another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah exempts from Malkos, someone who leaves over from the Korban Pesach until the morning, because it is a 'La'av she'Nitak la'Asei'. According to Rebbi Ya'akov - it is due to the fact that it is a 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh'.

(b) We can extrapolate that both Tana'im hold 'Hasra'as Safek Sh'mah Hasra'ah' -bearing in mind that the La'av of 'Bal Tosiru' is always a 'Has'ra'as Safek' (since whenever one warns the sinner to eat his Korban, he can say that he still has time to eat it, and once the last moment arrives, it is too late to warn him).