Previous daf

1)

(a) What made Rava initially think that Simanim are better than Tevi'as Ayin (recognition) - is the fact that one returns a lost article with Simanim, but not with Tevi'as Ayin (see Tosfos DH 've'Lo Mehadrinan').

(b) He changed his mind however - on account of the cases that we just cited, where the Amora'im permitted Isur through Tevi'as Ayin (though it is unclear how he learns from there that Tevi'as Ayin is superior to Simanim and not just equal to them).

(c) The problem if Tevi'as Ayin is not superior to Simanim is - how a man could ever be intimate with his wife by night, and a blind man even by day, unless we rely upon recognition of the voice (which is a branch of Tevi'as Ayin).

(a) Rav Yitzchak b'rei de'Rav Mesharshaya supports Rava from the witnesses in a murder case - who are believed if they say that they recognize the litigants, but not if they give Simanim to describe them.

(b) And Rav Ashi proves him right from the fact - that if Reuven describes Shimon to Levi, it is far from clear that he will recognize him; whereas with Tevi'as Ayin, he definitely will.

(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah requires the removal of the entire Gid ha'Nasheh. This is the opinion of Rebbi Meir - who requires the Gid to be dug out by its roots (as we have already learned).

(b) Rebbi Yehudah requires - only the removal of the part that is visible.

(c) The Tana rules that somebody who eats ...

1. ... a k'Zayis of a Gid ha'Nasheh - receives Malkos.
2. .... a Gid ha'Nasheh that comprises less than a k'Zayis - receives Malkos too.

(d) We already discussed the Seifa of the Mishnah, where the Tana sentences someone who eats a k'Zayis of each Gid to two sets of Malkos. Rebbi Yehudah - sentences him to only one set (for eating the right Gid).

(a) When bar Pivli cut away only the visible part of the Gid ha'Nasheh, like Rebbi Yehudah, Shmuel commented - that he should cut away more. and that if he hadn't seen him, he (bar Pivli) would have served him Isur.

(b) When out of frustration, bar Pivli dropped his knife - Shmuel reassured him that he was not accusing him of cutting away too little out of ignorance, but realized that he had been taught like Rebbi Yehudah (whereas he held like Rebbi Meir).

(c) From Rav Sheishes' initial statement, that bar Pivli fulfilled Rebbi Yehudah's Torah obligation - we can imply that he did not fulfill Rebbi Yehudah's obligation mi'de'Rabbanan.

(d) The problem then is - like whom had they taught bar Pivli?

(e) So we amend Rav Sheishes' statement to read - that bar Pivli fulfilled Rebbi Meir's Torah obligation, but not what Rebbi Meir requires to be cut away mi'de'Rabbanan.

(a) Shmuel issued a ruling, based on the Pasuk "al Kaf ha'Yarech" - that the Torah only forbade the part of the Gid that lies on the spoon of the thigh ...

(b) ... but not the remainder of the Gid (which extends well below that point).

6)

(a) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa sentences a person to Malkos for eating a Gid ha'Nasheh that is less than a k'Zayis - due to the fact that it is a Beryah (a complete entity [see Tosfos DH 'Beryah').

(b) Rebbi Yehudah counters that by citing the Pasuk "Al-kein Lo Yochlu B'nei Yisrael es Gid ha'Nasheh" - and 'Achilah' always implies a k'Zayis.

(c) The Rabbanan learn from "Yochlu" - that one is Chayav even for eating a k'Zayis of a large Gid ha'Nasheh, even though he did not eat the complete Gid.

(d) Rebbi Yehudah learns that from "Asher al Kaf ha'Yarech". But the Rabbanan learn from there - that one is only Chayav for eating the Gid that is on the Kaf ha'Yerech (like Shmuel).

(a) The Rabbanan counter Rebbi Yehudah's D'rashah from "ha'Yarech", 'de'Kulah Yerech' (even the part of the Gid that is not on the Kaf) - by using that Pasuk to teach us that one is only Chayav for the inner Gid, which stretches down the entire thigh (as we learned earlier).

(b) We not indeed need "Kaf" to preclude the Gid ha'Nasheh of a bird. The Torah however - writes "Gid" twice.

(c) We have proved from this Beraisa - that Shmuel's D'rashah (from "al Kaf ha'Yarech") is in fact, a Machlokes Tana'im (the opinion of the Rabbanan, but not Rebbi Yehudah).

(a) Our Mishnah rules that a thigh that has been cooked together with the Gid ha'Nasheh - is Asur as long as it adds taste.

(b) The Tana measures the Shi'ur as if the thigh was a turnip, and the Gid, meat (even though, if it was a different kind of vegetable, it would require a little more or a little less) - 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai' (This Din will be explained in the Sugya).

(c) And the Tana rules that if a Gid ha'Nasheh has been cooked together with other Gidin in a case where ...

1. ... one recognizes the Gid ha'Nasheh - then, after removing the Isur, the remaining pieces will be permitted, as long as the Gid ha'Nasheh did not add taste to them.
2. ... one does not recognize it - then the entire pot is Asur.

(a) The gravy of such a mixture - will be permitted as long as the forbidden pieces do not contain sufficient to add taste.

(b) The Tana finally rules - exactly the same with regard to a piece of Neveilah or Tamei fish that is cooked with other Kasher pieces of the same kind, as it did by Gid ha'Nasheh.

(a) Shmuel qualifies the opening Din in our Mishnah - by confining it to where the thigh was specifically cooked together with its Gid. But if they were roasted together, he permits eating the thigh right up to the Gid (see Tosfos DH 'ad she'Magi'a le'Gid')., because there is no gravy to carry the taste of the Gid to the rest of the thigh.

(b) Rav Huna - forbids a kid that one roasted together with its Cheilev ...

(c) When he said 'even from the tips of its ears', he meant - that even the tips of its ears are forbidden, in spite of their distance from (Tosfos DH 'Afilu').

(d) This is not in contradiction with Shmuel's ruling - because Cheilev, unlike Gid ha'Nasheh (which is dry), spreads across the entire body.