Previous daf

1)

(a) When, upon arrival in Eretz Yisrael, Rebbi Elazar asked for the name of the 'Tana' who had taught Rav the Din of K'chal, he was referring to - Rav's ruling forbidding K'chal that was cooked without tearing it open like the second version cited by Rebbi Zeira on the previous Amud [see also Tosfos DH 'de'Asnayeih la'Rav').

(b) When Rebbi Elazar was referred to Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi, he replied to Rebbi Elazar's question when the latter was referred to him - that he had not taught Rav anything, but that he had found it necessary to issue a stringent ruling in this regard, for reasons that will now become clear.

(c) Rav overheard one woman ask another in the town of Tatelpush - how much milk one requires in which to cook a litra of meat. That was when he decided that a decree was necessary.

(a) That was Rav Kahana's version of the story. According to Rebbi Yossi bar Aba, Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi did in fact teach Rav the Din of K'chal - namely, the milk that is found in the udders of a feeding cow, which is of course, real milk, and which renders the K'chal Asur if one cooks it without first tearing it open?

(b) Whhen Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi taught the Din to Rebbi Chiya and his Talmidim - he taught them 'K'chal' S'tam, in the kowledge that Rebbi Chiya would understand that he was referring to the case that we just described. However, he failed to realize that Rebbi Chiya's Talmidim were not as sharp as he was, and that they would err.

(a) Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef and Ravin were once staying with Rav Papi - that his wife served them a dish of K'chal. Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef ate it, Ravin did not.

(b) Abaye asked Ravin by way of rebuke - why he declined to eat, bearing in mind that Rav Papi's wife was the daughter of Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha, who was a Posek, and from she must have learned that K'chal is permitted.

(c) He referred to him as 'Ravin Tichla' - meaning Ravin who buries his children, as that is what happened to him.

(a) In Sura, they did not eat K'chal at all. In Pumbedisa - they did (at least, roasted).

(b) This was very much to Rami bar Tamri's advantage, as we shall now see. Rami bar Tamri (alias Rami bar Dikuli). was - from Pumbedisa.

(a) When Rami bar Tamri once arrived in Sura on Erev Yom Kipur, after the residents had all thrown out their K'chalim - he took them and ate them.

(b) When they brought before Rav Chisda, who asked him ...

1. ... why he did that, he replied - that he was from Rav Yehudah's town (Pumbedisa).
2. ... why he disregarded the Mishnah in Pesachim 'Nosnin Alav Chumrei Makom ... she'Halach le'Sham' - he explained that he had eaten the K'chalim outside the T'chum Shabbos of the town.
3. ...why he was not concerned that the grape pits that he used as fuel might be from Yayin Nesech - he pointed out that they were more than a year old, by which time the Din of Yayin Nesech no longer applies (as we learned in a Mishnah in Avodah-Zarah).
4. ... why he was not concerned that they may be Asur because of Gezel - he answered that they had already gone moldy, a sure sign that the owner has given up hope (Yi'ush) which renders them Hefker.

(c) And when Rav Yehudah asked him why he was not wearing ...

1. ... Tefilin, he replied - that he had stomach trouble, and someone with stomach trouble, is Patur from Tefilin.
2. ... Tzitzis, as the garment he was wearing had four corners,he explained that the garment he was wearing was borrowed and a borrowed garment is Patur from Tzitzis.

(d) With regard to the last two She'eilos he quoted - Rav Yehudah.

6)

(a) Rav Chisda took the man whom they brought before him (in the presence of Rami bar Tamri) for refusing to honor his parents - and bent him over the Amud, with the intention of giving him Malkos.

(b) The P'tur Malkos for contravening a Mitzvas Asei - is confined to someone who has already failed to observe it, but not to someone who refuses to fulfill it. About such a person Chazal have said 'Kofin Oso ad she'Teitzei Nafsho'.

(c) Rami bar Tamri objected to Rav Chisda's intended sentence on the basis of the principle - that any Mitzvah next to which the Torah inserts the reward (as it does by Tzedakah and Kibud Av va'Eim), is not subject to Malkos (even if it is to induce the person to keep the Mitzvah).

(d) When Rav Chisda remarked at Rami bar Tamri's sharpness, he replied - that if he had been in Rav Yehudah's domain, he would have really demonstrated what he could do.

(a) Abaye asked Rav Safra to inquire about the Din of cooked liver, when he went to Eretz Yisrael. The problem with cooked liver is - whether once the heat extracts blood from the liver, it becomes Asur, and therefore forbids the liver that is still in the pot.

(b) Rebbi Zerika subsequently told Rav Safra - that he used to boil a liver for Rebbi Ami, which he would subsequently send him, and Rebbi Ami used to eat it.

(c) When, upon his return to Bavel, Rav Safra reported his findings to Abaye, the latter replied that this was not what he wanted to now, as he knew it already - because since the liver is busy exuding blood into the pot, it is obvious that it will not absorb the blood that it has already exuded.

(a) What Abaye wanted to know was - whether the blood that emerges from the liver, forbids other meat that is cooking together with it in the same pot.

(b) Rav Safra cited the Mishnah in Terumos 'ha'Kaveid Oseres ve'Einah Ne'eseres', which poses a Kashya on Abaye - because just as the Tana informs us that the liver does not become Asur (and which Abaye obviously knew), he also informs us that it renders Asur another piece of meat that is cooking together with it in the same pot (so why did he ask the She'eilah)?

(c) Abaye replied - that the Tana might well be speaking about the liver of a Tereifah, which will forbid the piece of meat, not because of the Isur Dam, but because of Tereifus.

(d) What makes Abaye think that the blood might not render the piece of meat Tereifah - is the fact that it is blood of Heter, which it was whilst it was liver, and Abaye wanted to know whether it became Asur when it emerged from the liver or not.