Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Chisda instructed Rav Hamnuna to place a Niduy on the elders of Nezunya - because they did not attend his D'rashah.

(b) The reason that they gave for this was - because he had not replied to the She'eilah that they asked him.

(c) When Rav Hamnuna challenged them to present him with a problem, they asked him whether an Eved, whose master made Sirus Beitzim, goes free. He might ...

1. ... go free - because the result of the caastration is visible, since the Beitzim are now hanging loosely.
2. ... not go free - because the actual Beitzim, which are covered by a membrane, are not visible.

(d) When Rav Hamnuna was unable to answer their She'eilah - they commented that his name was not really Hamnuna, but 'Karnuna' (meaning a Batlan who sits in the corners [from the term 'Yoshev *K'ranos*']). See also Tosfos.

(a) When Rav Hamnuna reported to Rav Chisda what had happened - the latter commented that, what they had asked was actually a Mishnah in Nega'im.

(b) The Mishnah in Nega'im says that the twenty-four major limbs are not Metamei because of Michyah (a patch of healthy flesh in the middle of a mark of Tzara'as [which is a sign of Tum'ah]) - because all the limbs concerned are rounded, and the Kohen cannot see the entire limb in one go (whereas the Torah writes in Tazri'a "le'Chol Mar'eh Einei ha'Kohen").

(c) The twenty-four major limbs are - the tips of the fingers, the tips of the toes, the tips of the ears, the tip of the nose, the top of the Milah of a man and the nipples of a woman.

(d) Rebbi Yehudah adds - the nipples of a man.

(a) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa states that all twenty-four limbs set an Eved Ivri free. Rebbi adds Sirus - ben Azai says 'also the tongue'.

(b) Rebbi cannot be adding the castration of the Gid (of B'ris Milah) to the list - because it is already included in the Mishnah.

(c) 'Sirus' must then be referring - to the castration of the Beitzim.

(d) Rebbi seems to hold that the Eved does not go free should his master cut of his tongue. In that case, we initially explain Rebbi in another Beraisa, who says that if a Kohen sprinkled the ashes of the Parah Adumah on the mouth of a Tamei Meis, he is Tahor, to refer (not to the tongue, but ) - to the lips (which a person sometimes shuts tight, and which might therefore be construed as 'Tamun' [hidden]).

(a) The previous interpretation is however, unacceptable - since Rebbi himself specifically interprets 'the mouth' in the Beraisa, as 'Lashon'.

(b) In addition, Rebbi issues a ruling that clashes with it. The Tana Kama of a Beraisa says that if most of an animal's tongue is removed, it is considered blemished. Rebbi says - the majority of the part that speaks (in a human-being) i.e. from where the lower part of the tongue is joined to behind the teeth.

(c) In view of the fact that Rebbi concedes that the tongue sets the Eved free, in the Beraisa 'Rebbi Omer Af ha'Sirus; ben Azai Omer Af ha'Lashon' - Rebbi said 'Sirus' and certainly 'Lashon', whereas ben Azai said 'Lashon, but Sirus, not.

(d) The reason that the Tana placed ben Azai after Rebbi and not before him - is because, although ben Azai refers to the Tana Kama, and not to Rebbi, since the Tana only heard his opinion after he had already inserted Rebbi, he did not want to change the order of the Beraisa (so as not to confuse the Talmidim who had already learned it like that). So he left the order intact, adding ben Azai at the end.

(a) What Eved Cana'ani, Haza'ah, Tum'ah and Tevilah all have in common is - that their respective Halachos only pertain to revealed limbs, but not to those that are Tamun.

(b) Ula extrapolates (concerning the tongue) from the Pasuk in Metzora ...

1. ... "ve'Chol Asher *Yiga* Bo ha'Zav" - that whatever the Zav can readily touch is subject to Tum'ah. Consequently, the tongue, which sometimes protrudes from the mouth, is subject to Tum'ah (even what is Tamun [known as Tum'as Beis ha'S'tarim] is not ).
2. ... "ve'Rachatz *Besaro* ba'Mayim" - that when it comes to Tevilah, only parts of the body that enter the water automatically must actually have contact with the water, but not parts that need to have water placed on them, precluding the tongue (all of which cannot possibly enter the water).

(c) He now uses these opposing Halachos to explain the Machlokes between Rebbi and the Rabbanan (whether the tongue is considered revealed or Tamun regarding the Halachos of Haza'ah) - by basing the two opinions on these two aspects - whether we compare Haza'ah to Tum'ah (Rebbi) or to Tevilah (the Rabbanan).

(d) Rebbi learns from "ve'Hizah ha'Tahor *al ha'Tamei*, be'Yom ha'Shelishi u'va'Yom ha'Shevi'i *ve'Chit'o* (comparing Haza'ah to Tum'ah). The Rabbanan learn from "*ve'Chit'o* ba'Yom ha'Shevi'i ve'Chibes Begadav *ve'Rachatz* ba'Mayim ve'Taher" to compare Haza'ah to Tevilah.

1. The Rabanan decline to learn like Rebbi - because they prefer to learn Taharah from Taharah.
2. Rebbi declines to learn like the Rabbanan - because "ve'Chibes Begadav" interrupts between the two words that form the basis of their Limud.

(a) Ravin Amar Rav Ada Amar Rebbi Yitzchak related the episode of the Shifchah of Beis Rebbi. After she had Toveled - they discovered a bone stuck between her teeth.

(b) Rebbi instructed her - to Tovel again.

(c) We reconcile this with Ula, who stated that Rebbi concedes that concerning Tevilah, the tongue is considered Tamun - by differentiating between the water actually entering the mouth (which is not necessary) and the water being able to enter her mouth and touch all places there (which *is*).

(d) This is based on Rebbi Zeira, who said 'Kol ha'Ra'uy le'Bilah (regarding the mixing of the flour and oil of the Menachos), Ein Bilah Me'akeves Bo. ve'Chol she'Eino Re'uyah le'Bilah, Bilah Me'akeves Bo' (meaning that mixing them must be possible, even though it need not performed).

7)

(a) When Rebbi Yehudah says in a Beraisa 'u'Ma'uch, ve'Chasus, ve'Nasuk ve'Charus, be'Beitzim', he means - 'Af be'Beitzim' ('Kal va'Chomer' be'Gid, which is certainly revealed).

(b) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov disagrees. He says - 'Kulan be'Gid (ve'Lo be'Beitzim)'. By quoting this Beraisa, we have proved - that there is a (second) Machlokes Tana'im whether Beitzim are considered Galuy or Tamun.

(c) Rebbi Yossi makes a distinction between 'Ma'uch ve'Chasus (squashed and crushed), which are considered revealed even by the Beitzim - and Nasuk ve'Charus (cut and completely severed) which are only considered revealed by the Gid, but not by the Beitzim.

(a) According to Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Elazar in our Mishnah, one acquires a large animal with Mesirah and a small animal with Hagbahah. Mesirah entails - the owner handing it over to its new owner by its reigns or its hair ... (as we learned above). See also Tosfos DH 'Beheimah Niknis bi'Mesirah' (1).

(b) According to them, one cannot ...

1. ... acquire a large animal with Meshichah (since it is not customary to lead it). See also Tosfos DH 'Beheimah Niknis bi'Mesirah' (2).
2. ... acquire a small animal with Mesirah or Meshichah (since it can easily be acquired with Hagbahah, the Chachamim did not institute other methods of Kinyan).

(c) According to the Chachamim, one acquires a small animal with Meshichah, too.

(a) When Rav Darshened in Kimchunya that one acquires a large animal with Meshichah, Shmuel asked his disciples - how he could rule against our Mishnah, which lists Mesirah (and not Meshichah). And besides, Rav contradicted himself, since elsewhere, he himself ruled like the Mishnah?

(b) Rav's disciples first of all reconciled Rav's two rulings - by informing Shmuel that Rav had retracted from his initial stance.

(c) (Strictly speaking, Rav is a Tana and he has the authority to argue with a Mishnah. However, it is not necessary to come on to this here, because) - Rav relies on a Beraisa, which quotes the Chachamim who say 'Zu ve'Zu Niknis bi'Meshichah'.

(d) Strictest of all is Rebbi Shimon in the same Beraisa, who says - 'Zu ve'Zu be'Hagbahah'.

(a) Rav Yosef asked how, according to Rebbi Shimon, one acquires an elephant (which one cannot possibly pick up). Abaye suggests - acquiring it either with Chalipin or by renting its place (with which all Metaltelin [not only animals] can be acquired).

(b) Rebbi Zeira suggests bringing four vessels which one then places under the elephants feet - in which case his vessels will acquire it on his behalf (with a Kinyan Chatzer).

(c) The problem with Rebbi Zeira's answer is - that whether the purchaser's vessels can acquire for him in the seller's property or not is a Machlokes in Bava Basra (and there is obviously no clear-cut proof anywhere for either opinion).

(d) We resolve this problem - by establishing Rebbi Zeira's cases in a Simta (a side-street which is designated for private use, including Kinyanim).

Next daf