Previous daf

1)

(a) Is one permitted to Shecht a Mesukenes (an animal that is dangerously ill [See Tosfos DH 'ha'Shochet'])?

(b) What does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (or Raban Gamliel, as it appears from the Sugya) say if, after Shechting a Mesukenes, it failed to make Pirchus (convulse) with both its fore and hind legs?

(c) According to Rebbi Eliezer, it is sufficient for the animal to make Zinuk.
What is 'Zinuk'?

(d) What does Rebbi Shimon say about someone who Shechts a Mesukenes at nighttime and gets up in the morning to find blood spattered all over the animal's neck?

(e) With whom does Rebbi Shimon concur?

(a) According to the Chachamim, it is sufficient if the animal moves either a fore or a hind leg. What alternative Shi'ur Pirchus do they give?

(b) The Tana requires a small animal which stretches out its foreleg after the Shechitah, to take it back in order to be considered Pirchus.
What does he say about a large animal?

(c) Why the difference?

(d) And what does the Tana say about an animal that is not a Mesukenes?

(a) We ask from where we know that a Mesukenes is permitted.
What makes us think that it might not?

(b) How do we therefore learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Neveilah ... Lo Sochel" that it is permitted?

(c) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Shemini "ve'Chi Yamus min ha'Beheimah ... ha'Noge'a be'Nivlasah Yitma"?

(d) What might we otherwise have thought?

(a) We query the proof from Neveilah however, on the grounds that even if a Mesukenes is not called Neveilah, we would still require two Pesukim.
Why is that?

(b) So we try to prove that a Mesukenes is permitted from the same Pasuk (in Mishpatim) " ... Tereifah Lo Sochel".
How?

(c) How do we refute the proof from Tereifah?

(d) And we refute the refutation (as it were) from Neveilah.
How do we do that?

(a) And how do we finally refute the proofs from both Neveilah and Tereifah?
Why might the Torah find it necessary to write three Pesukim even assuming that a Mesukenes is forbidden? What do we mean when we say that Neveilah, Mesukenes and Tereifah are one?

(b) So we turn to a Pasuk in Tzav. What problem do we have with the Pasuk "ve'Cheilev Neveilah ve'Cheilev Tereifah Ye'aseh le'Chol Melachah, Ve'achol Lo Sochluhu"?

(c) How do we solve it? Why does the Torah need to teach us this Pasuk?

(d) What does "Ye'aseh le'Chol Melachah" come to teach us?

(a) How do we now prove from the Pasuk in Tzav that a Mesukenes cannot be forbidden like a Tereifah? What would the Torah not have needed to teach us?

(b) What ought the Torah to have then written?

7)

(a) Mar bar Rav Ashi suggests that Mesukenes is perhaps forbidden, and the Torah needs to write "ve'Cheilev Neveilah ... Lo Sochluhu" to teach us that even a Neveilah that was not first a Mesukenes is forbidden. How is such a thing possible?

(b) What do we answer?

(c) How might we alternatively learn the Heter of Mesukenes from the second "ve'Cheilev", which is superfluous.
How do we learn it from there?

(d) Alternatively, we learn the Heter of eating a Mesukenes from Yechezkel, who complained to Hashem "Aha Hashem Elokim ... ". What was he complaining about?

(a) What did Yechezkel mean when he said ...

1. ... "Hinei Nafshi Lo Metuma'ah"?
2. ... "u'Neveilah u'Tereifah Lo Achalti mi'Ne'urai"?
3. ... ve'Lo Ba be'Fi Basar Pigul"?

(b) How did Rebbi Nasan explain Yechezkel's last statement?

(c) In the previous statement, why can we not interpret "Neveilah" and "Tereifah" literally?

(d) What do we now prove from Yechezkel?

(a) How does Rav Yehudah Amar Rav define a Mesukenes?

(b) What does Rav Chanina bar Shalmaya say about such an animal, which then proceeds to munch blocks of wood, and Rami bar Yechezkel, even if it eats beams?

(c) This is the version as it was learnt in Sura. In Pumbedisa, they cited Rami bar Yechezkel just as they did in Sura.
How did they cite Rav Yehudah Amar Rav?

Next daf