Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan too, explains the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Shimon (whether the Eiver and the Basar are Muchshar via the blood of the Shechitah) like Abaye. And he asks on Rebbi Meir from his own opinion in a Beraisa, where he rules that food that has separated from its source but is still slightly attached is considered joined - only if, when one picks up the small section, the large section comes with bit, but not if it breaks off.

(b) The ramifications of the Beraisa's ruling are - that where a T'vul-Yom touched one, whether the other becomes a Shelishi.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan reconciles the two statements of Rebbi Meir - by switching the opinions of Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah (not cited in our Sugya [see Tiferes Ya'akov]) regarding a T'vul-Yom. Consequently, the opinion that is cited is that of Rebbi Yehudah, and Rebbi Meir will say there like he says here.

(d) We try to reconcile Rebbi Meir's two rulings without saying 'Muchlefes ha'Shitah' - by confining Rebbi Meir's ruling in the Beraisa to a T'vul-Yom, which is only a Sheini le'Tum'ah, but in our Mishnah, which is talking about an Av ha'Tum'ah, he is more stringent.

(e) We refute that suggestion however, by citing a Beraisa, where Rebbi specifically does not differentiate between a T'vul-Yom and other Tum'os. And to counter the Kashya that perhaps Rebbi does not differentiate, but Rebbi Meir does, Rebbi Yashiyah explains Rebbi Yochanan to mean - that according to Rebbi, we will have to switch the opinions.

(a) According to Rava, both Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Shimon hold 'Yesh Yad le'Tum'ah', and they are arguing over whether we say - 'Yesh Yad le'Hechsher' (Rebbi Meir) as well, or not (Rebbi Shimon).

(b) Both Tana'im however - clearly hold that a Beheimah is a Yad le'Eiver.

(c) Rav Papa maintains that both Tana'im even hold 'Yesh Yad le'Hechsher' too. And to explain the basis of their Machlokes, he cites a Beraisa, where Rebbi Akiva rules that Cheilev of a Shechutah of the villagers (who are Nochrim) does not require Hechsher, because it already became Muchshar with the Shechitah. The Tana mentions villagers here - because either due to the fact that they are farmers and more meat is available to them, or because they are poor (and it is the wealthy who tend to eat Cheilev) - the Cheilev of their animals requires Machshavah to give it the status of food.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah therefore queried Rebbi Akiva from something else that he taught them. The difference between human food and animal food regarding Hechsher Tum'ah is that - whereas the former requires Hechsher for Kabalas Tum'ah, the latter does not.

(b) Rebbi Akiva ruled there that Ulshin (a kind of bitter herb) that one picked and washed in order to feed animals, and then decided to use as human food - require a second Hechsher, in order to make it subject to Tum'as Ochlin (because a Hechsher that precedes Machshavah is not valid).

(c) Rav Papa therefore explains our Machlokes in the same way - where the Machshavah (to feed the Eiver or the Basar to a Nochri) followed the Shechitah.

(d) Rebbi Akiva accepted Rebbi Yehudah's Kashya and retracted from the earlier ruling. Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah now holds like Rebbi Yehudah (and Rebbi Akiva), whereas Rebbi Meir - holds like Rebbi Akiva before he retracted.

(a) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ika establishes the Machlokes in a case where the blood squirted on the limb after the Shechitah of the first Si'man, but was wiped off between the Shechitah of the second one. The basis of their Machlokes is - whether 'Yeshnah li'Shechitah mi'Techilah ve'ad Sof' (in which case, the blood was the blood of Shechitah, which is Machshir), or Einah li'Shechitah Ela be'Sof' (in which case it was only the blood of a wound, which is not Machshir.

(b) With regard to 'Yad le'Hechsher', they will both hold - 'Ein Yad Lehechsher'.

(c) According to Rav Ashi, they are arguing over whether it is the Shechitah or the blood that is Machshir Lekabel Tum'ah. Even though Rebbi Shimon holds that Shechitah is Machshir, it is not Machshir the Eiver and the Basar (despite the fact that it is effective to remove Tum'as Neveilos) - because it is not effective to permit them to be eaten (which is the reason why, according to him Shechitah is Machshir in the first place).

(d) The Eiver and the Basar are not Metamei anyway, because the rest of the animal serves as a Yad - due to the fact that, either they hold 'Ein Yad Lehechsher', or that a larger section of a food will not become a Yad if, when one picks up the small section, it breaks off.

(a) Rabah established the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Shimon by whether a Shechted animal becomes a Yad for the Eiver or not. Now he asks whether the animal will serve as a Yad to the Eiver in its lifetime - according to Rebbi Meir who holds that after the Shechitah, it does.

(b) It might well not - because a live animal is not subject to Tum'ah in its own right, so (seeing as it is not actually Batel to the Eiver) why should it transmit Tum'ah to or from the Eiver or the Basar?

(c) Whatever grows from the ground is not subject to Tum'ah, as long as it is still attached. Something that grows in an un-holed pot, on the other hand - is subject to Tum'ah, seeing as it is not attached to the ground.

(d) The Tana Kama in Uktzin rules that a cucumber that one planted in an un-holed pot, which then grows until it extends beyond the walls of the pot, is considered joined to the ground, even with regard to the rest of the cucumber still inside the pot. Rebbi Shimon holds - that whatever is inside the pot remains subject to Tum'ah, whereas whatever protrudes outside the walls, is Tahor.

(e) Abaye asked according to Rebbi Shimon - whether the branch of the cucumber that protrudes outside the pot will become a Yad to the cucumber that is inside.

(a) Chazal ruled that someone who prostrates himself to half a gourd - forbids that half be'Hana'ah.

(b) Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk "mi'Kol ha'Ochel Asher Ye'achel" that Isurei Hana'ah - are not subject to Tum'as Ochlin (because they cannot be fed to anybody).

(c) The fact that Avodah-Zarah is Metamei like a Sheretz and according to Rebbi Akiva, even like a Nidah, is no contradiction to what we just said, since we are speaking mi'd'Oraysa, whereas their Tum'ah is only mi'de'Rabbanan.

(d) Rebbi Yirmiyah asks whether the forbidden part of the gourd will be considered a Yad for the part which is still permitted. If we are referring to transmitting Tum'ah from a Sheretz - then the She'eilah is whether it will become a Rishon le'Tum'ah (not a Sheini, since the forbidden itself is not a Rishon).

(e) The alternative explanation of the She'eilah, assuming that the other half ...

1. ... was not Huchshar Lekabel Tum'ah is - whether it will then serve as a Yad, to transmit the Tum'ah (de'Rabbanan) from the forbidden half of the gourd, to food that touches it, or not.
2. ... Huchshar Lekabel Tum'ah is - whether it will then become a Rishon (mi'de'Rabbanan), to render any food that touches it, a Sheini, or not.

7)

(a) Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah in Uktzin declares Tahor the branch of a fig-tree that has broken off from the tree, but that is still joined via the bark. The Chachamim hold - that it is Tahor only if the branch is destined to revive, but not if it will die.

(b) When Rav Papa asks whether one branch becomes a Yad for the other, he means to ask - whether, assuming that this branch is destined to survive, and part of it too, breaks off, but is not, the initial branch will serve as a Yad for the second one, or not.

(c) Alternatively, he means to ask whether - assuming that the broken branch will die, whether the tree becomes a Yad to transmit Tum'ah to the branch, or not, though it is unclear how this fits into the Lashon of the She'eilah (see also Tiferes Ya'akov).

(a) The Mishnah in Nega'im learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Chiltzu es ha'Avanim" that a corner stone in a Bayis ha'Menuga which needs to be re-placed after one week - must be removed completely, even the half that belongs to the neighbor's house (since "Avanim" incorporates every complete stone that is affected).
2. ... "Ve'nasatz es ha'Bayis" that if after being replaced, at the of the second or third week, the house needs to be demolished, only his half of the same cornerstone needs to be demolished together with the stricken house (since "ha'Bayis" implies one house and not two).

(b) Rebbi Zeira now asks, whether the Tahor side of the stone will serve as a Yad for the Tamei side, to render Tamei be'Ohel anything that is underneath it until the Tamei half has been removed (it is a unclear why Rashi needs to mention Ohel at all, see Poras Yosef).

(c) The outcome of all these She'eilos is Teiku.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if the animal dies, the loose Eiver and Basar are Metamei because of Eiver min ha'Chai, but not because of Neveilah. The practical difference between the two is - that Basar that comes from the former is Tahor, from the latter, is Tamei.

(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav learns from the Pasuk "ve'Chi Yamus *min ha'Beheimah*" - that Eiver min ha'Chai is Metamei.

(c) When Rav Yehudah Amar Rav (others cite a Beraisa) Darshens from the same Pasuk 'Miktzas Beheimah Metam'ah, *u'Miktzas Beheimah Einah Metam'ah'*, he is referring - to a Tereifah that has been Shechted.

(d) He is able to learn two things from the same Pasuk - because the Torah could have written 'me'ha'Beheimah' to teach us the latter Limud. It wrote "min ha'Beheimah" to teach us the current Limud as well.

(a) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili in a Beraisa learns from "ve'Chi Yamus" and Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi, from "Beheimah" (both in the same Pasuk) - that Basar min ha'Chai is not Metamei.

(b) The difference between Rebbi Akiva, who requires 'Gidin va'Atzamos' and ...

1. ... Rebbi, who requires 'Basar, Gidin va'Atzamos' - lies in the calf (that is sold together with the head), which contains Gidin and bones, but no Basar (so it is an Eiver according to Rebbi Akiva, but not according to Rebbi.
2. ... Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, who defines 'Eino Oseh Chalipin' - lies in the kidneys and the lips, which will not re-grow (and are therefore an considered an Eiver according to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili), but which do not contain Gidin or bones (in which case it is not an Eiver according to Rebbi Akiva)..

(c) The same triple Machlokes is repeated by Sheratzim, where Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learns the same thing from "be'Mosam" and Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi from "Sheretz". We need two sets of Limudim, because, had the Torah only taught us this with regard to ...

1. ... Beheimah, we would have thought that Basar Sheratzim is Metamei even in the animal's lifetime - because the Shi'ur Tum'ah is a k'Adashah (a lentil), as opposed to the k'Zayis of Basar min ha'Chai.
2. ... Sheratzim, we would have thought that Basar Beheimah is Metamei even in its lifetime - because it is Metamei be'Masa, as opposed to Basar Sheratzim, which are only Metamei be'Maga, but not be'Masa.

(a) The Beraisa rules that if someone cut off a k'Beitzah Basar from Eiver min ha'Chai and then has the Machshavah to feed it to a Nochri - it remains Tahor, whereas if he had the Machshavah first and then cut it off - it is Tamei.

(b) Rebbi Asi needed to ask Rebbi Zeira what they had learned in the Beis-Hamedrash that day - on that day for some reason, he had not attended the Beis-Hamedrash.

(c) When Rebbi Zeira asked what his problem was, he cited the current Beraisa, which he queried - on the grounds that it was Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim (since their point of contact was not visible), so why was even Chishev Alav ve'Achar-Kach Chatcho, Tamei?

(d) Rebbi Zeira replied that he had had the same problem and that he had in fact, asked Rebbi Aba bar Mamal, who replied - by establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Meir, who holds that Tum'as Beis ha'S'tarim is Metamei.