Previous daf

1)

(a) We query Rava (who forbids Kasher meat that has been salted together with Tereifah meat) from the Beraisa which permits a Tahor fish that has been salted together with a Tamei one. The Kashya assumes - that both fish were salted.

(b) To reconcile Rava with its ruling, we establish the Beraisa - when only the Tahor fish was salted, but not the Tamei one.

(c) If the Tamei fish was salted and the Tahor one was not - then the latter would most certainly be Asur (as we shall see shortly).

(d) We reconcile this interpretation of the Beraisa with the Seifa 'Hayah Tahor Meli'ach, ve'Tamei Tapal, Mutar' (which seems to merely repeat the Reisha) - by establishing that the Seifa comes to explain the Reisha (which initially appears ambiguous).

(a) We try to prove that the Seifa must be coming to explain the Reisha, because otherwise it would be superfluous - since if the Tahor fish remains Kasher even when it too, was salted, how much more so if it was not!

(b) We refute this proof however - by suggesting that the Tana learned the Seifa to teach us that the Reisha is indeed speaking when both fish were salted.

(c) We try to prove from the Seifa de Seifa 'Aval im Hayah Tamei Malu'ach, ve'Tahor Tapal, Asur' (by inference) - that if both fish were salted, the Tahor fish would be permitted (a Kashya on Rava).

(d) We refute this proof however - with the argument that the Tana may well have seen fit to learn the Seifa de'Seifa, even if 'Sheneihem Meluchim, Asur', to balance with the Reisha de'Seifa 'Tahor Meli'ach, ve'Tamei Tapal' (and not to teach us the inference).

(a) The two conditions that Shmuel requires for meat to become rid of all its blood are - a. a thorough salting and b. a thorough rinsing.

(b) Rav Huna learns 'Mole'ach u'Madi'ach'. The Beraisa - Madi'ach, Mo'le'ach u'Madi'ach.

(c) We reconcile Rav Huna with the Beraisa - by establishing him there where the meat was already rinsed in the butchery.

(d) Rav Dimi from Neherda'a would salt the meat using rock-salt - as a result of which he had to shake it off later. This would not have been necessary had he used fine salt, which melts and drains by itself.

(a) Rav Mesharshaya states - that the intestines do not contain blood, and do not therefore require salting.

(b) However, we restrict this to the Kark'sha (the rectum), the Me'aya and the Hadra de'Kanta (the small intestine that surrounds the entrails). The 'Me'aya' incorporates - the Keivah, the Keres and the large intestines.

(c) Besides the heart, the liver and the lungs, this precludes - the entrails themselves (all of which do contain blood, and which therefore require salting).

(a) Shmuel requires the salting to take place - in a vessel that contains holes (for the blood to drain, as we already learned).

(b) Rav Sheishes would salt the limbs one by one - to prevent the blood from one limb becoming absorbed in the other, during the salting.

(c) We prove this unnecessary - because if it was, then by the same token, we ought to suspect that the blood will drip from one part of a limb and become absorbed in the other (which would negate the salting process altogether).

(d) Rav Sheishes' mistake was - that during the salting, whilst meat is busy exuding, it does not absorb.

(a) When Shmuel in the name of Rebbi Chiya says that someone who breaks the neck of an animal before it is dead makes the animal heavier, he means - that as a result of the additional pain, the animal is unable to heave the deep sigh that it normally does following the Shechitah, which draws the blood to the Beis ha'Shechitah, releasing it from the body. As a result, the blood is distributed to the other limbs in the body, making them all heavier.

(b) The ramifications of this statement are - that one is stealing from the purchasers (as Shmuel himself concludes).

(c) Bearing in mind Shmuel's three statements ('Machbid ... Gozel ... Mavli'a ... ') we ask whether the Isur is confined to 'Bein Adam la'Chavero' (as the statement suggests), or whether it incorporate the Isur Dam (since the excessive blood cannot be extracted through salting).

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

(a) Our Mishnah learns that someone who places Basar Of on the table together with cheese has not contravened a La Sa'aseh. This not an intrinsic Chidush - since even bringing Basar Beheimah on to the table with cheese is not an Isur Torah either.

(b) So we suggest that the Tana is coming to teach us - the inference, that someone who eats them together has transgressed.

(c) This precludes the opinion of Rebbi Akiva - who learns that Basar Of together with cheese, is not d'Oraysa, (as we shall see in the next Mishnah).

(d) We refute this proof however - by interpreting his words to mean that bringing Basar Of on the table together with cheese will not lead to a Lo Sa'aseh.

(a) On the one hand, our Mishnah forbids cooking Basar Beheimah Tehorah with Chalav Beheimah Tehorah or deriving benefit from it if one did; on the other, it permits cooking and deriving benefit from Basar Beheimah Tehorah with Chalav Beheimah Teme'ah, or vice-versa.

(b) Rebbi Akiva rules - that Basar Chayah ve'Of together with cheese - is not Asur min ha'Torah.

(c) In spite of the principle 'Chayah bi'Chelal Beheimah', Rebbi Akiva precludes Chayos from the Din of Basar be'Chalav - from the word "G'di", which is superfluous.

(d) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Lo Sochlu Kol Neveilah" ... "Lo Sevashel G'di ... " - from the fact that they appear in the same Pasuk, that whatever is subject to Neveilah (including a Chayah) is forbidden to cook together with milk.
2. ... "ba'Chaleiv Imo" - that the La'av precludes Basar Of (which is also subject to Neveilah, but) whose mother does not have milk.

9)

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

1. ... (in connection with Yehudah and Tamar) "Va'yishlach Yehudah es G'di ha'Izim" - that only there does "G'di" refer to a goat; elsewhere (such as in the Parshah of Basar be'Chalav) it refers to any Kasher animal.
2. ... (in connection with Eisav and Ya'akov)"ve'es Oros Gedayei ha'Izim" - that the previous Pasuk is not a Binyan Av (from which we would learn that everywhere else in the Torah, 'G'di' means a kid-goat too).

(b) Neither can we learn from the second Pasuk (or even from both Pesukim), that G'di always means specifically a kid-goat - because of the principle 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad Ein Melamdin' (When two Pesulim teach us the same thing, they are exceptions rather than the rule).

(c) Those who hold 'Melamdin' learn - from the extra 'Hey' (in "Izim - ha'Izim") that is written by each one that only there does "G'di" mean a kid-goat, but not anywhere else.

(a) Shmuel Darshens six things from the word "G'di". When he says "G'di", 'Lerabos es ...

1. ... he'Cheilev", he means - that if one cooks the Cheilev of an animal together with milk, he transgresses the La'av of Basar be'Chalav, as well as that of Cheilev.
2. ... Lerabos es ha'Meisah", he means that if he cooks a piece of meat from a Neveilah together with milk, he will transgress the La'av of Basar be'Chalav, as well as that of Neveilah.

(b) The third thing that he includes from "G'di" - is Basar Sh'lil (the flesh of a fetus).

(c) Shmuel also precludes three things from "G'di". Besides Dam (be'Chalav) and Shilya (be'Chalav), he also precludes - Teme'ah (be'Chalav).

(d) And besides the milk of a male animal and the milk of a Shechutah, he also precludes from "ba'Chalev Imo" - the milk of a Temei'ah'.

(a) The problem with the fact that Shmuel Darshens six things from "G'di" is - that the word "G'di only appears three times (and not six).

(b) To begin with, we learn 'Cheilev' and 'Meisah' from the same Pasuk - because both are of the species of 'G'di', in which case we apply the principle 'Hei Minaihu Mafkas' (which one should we preclude from the D'rashah? [so we include both]).

(c) At the same time, Shmuel learns from there the principle - 'Isur Chal al Isur' (since we see that the Isur of Basar be'Chalav takes effect on the Isur of Cheilev and of Neveilah).

(d) We reject the wording 'ka'Savar Shmuel Isur Chal al Isur' - because if he were to hold of that (before the D'rashah of "G'di"), then he would not require a Pasuk for Cheilev and Meisah (like we will say later, regarding the opinion of Rebbi Akiva).

(a) That still leaves us with five D'rashos from three words. So we comment on the D'rashah that precludes 'Dam' and 'Shilya' - that in reality, they do not require a Pasuk to preclude them, since they are not included in 'G'di' to begin with.

(b) Bearing in mind that "G'di" incorporates all species of Kasher animals - the Torah could just as well have written "Lo Sevashel ba'Chalev Imo", implying that one should not cook any animal that has mother's milk, together with milk (rendering "G'di" superfluous).

(a) Shmuel in the name of Rebbi Eliezer learns from the Pasuk "u'Meisu Bo ki Yechaleluhu" - that it is only if a Tamei Kohen eats Tahor Terumah (which he desecrates in the process) that he is Chayav Misah, but not if he eats Tamei Terumah (which is already desecrated before he eats it), because the Isur of a Tamei Kohen eating Terumah cannot take effect on that of a Kohen eating Tamei Terumah ...

(b) ... even though the former is an Isur La'av that is subject to Kareis, and the latter, only an Isur Asei.

(c) It seems from there - that Shmuel holds 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur', whereas according to what we just learned (regarding 'Cheilev u'Meisah'), he holds 'Isur Chal al Isur'.

(a) One of two answers that we give is that really Shmuel holds 'Isur Chal al Isur', and the case of a Kohen is a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv'. The alternative answer is - that really he holds 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur', and our case (of Cheilev and Neveilah) is a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv'.

(b) A third answer suggests that Shmuel really holds 'Isur Chal al Isur' across the board - and the D'rashah of "u'Meisu Bo ... " is not his personal opinion, but that of his Rebbe, Rebbi Eliezer.

(c) The Lashon 'Amar Shmuel Mishum Rebbi Eliezer' (as opposed to 'Amar Shmuel Amar Rebbi Eliezer') - implies that he heard it from a third party, which must be the case here, because Rebbi Eliezer, a Tana (a Talmid of Raban Yochanan ben Zakai) lived at the time of the Churban, many years before Shmuel (who was an Amora).

(a) Rav Achdevui bar Ami asked Rav whether someone who cooks meat in the milk of an animal that has not yet suckled its young is Chayav or not. He might not be Chayav - because "ba'Chaleiv Imo" may be taken literally to mean that the animal was actually a mother.

(b) Rav resolved the She'eilah from Shmuel's statement, precluding the milk of a male from the Isur of Basar be'Chalav - implying that the milk of a female, even if it is has not mothered a baby, is included (seeing as, unlike a male animal, it stands to become a mother one day).

(c) Initially, we connect the Machlokes between Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi as to whether Cheilev is subject to the La'av of Basar be'Chalav or not - with the question of whether we hold 'Isur Chal al Isur, or not (as we already saw in the Sugya of Shmuel).

(a) We conclude that in reality, both opinions hold 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur'. Nevertheless, one of them rules 'Chayav' - because they are talking (not about eating Cheilev that has been cooked in milk, but) about cooking them together ...

(b) ... and the reason of the one who holds that he is Patur from Malkos is - because the Torah deliberately presents the Isur of eating them together, using a Lashon of 'Bishul' ("Lo Sevashel G'di ... "), to teach us that whenever one is not Chayav for eating two items together, one is not Chayav for cooking them together either.

(c) In the second explanation, everyone holds that one receives Malkos for cooking Cheilev in milk, and they argue over eating them together. Both opinions hold 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur, and the one who holds that there is Malkos for eating it is - (based on the same logic as the previous answer), the Torah writes "Lo Sevashel G'di ... " with regard to the Isur of eating, to teach us that whenever one is Chayav for cooking two items together, one is Chayav for eating them together too.

(d) Alternatively, Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi are not even arguing - because the one who says Chayav is talking about cooking them together, whereas the one who says Patur, is talking about eating them together.