Previous daf

1)

(a) Rami bar Chama asked whether the fruit (grapes and olives) that is permitted by the Sh'tei ha'Lechem (to be brought as Korbanos) must have reached the stage of Hanatzah (blossoming) or Chanatah (budding, a later stage than Hanatzah [see Shitah Mekubetzes 1]). This cannot be referring to the blossoming and the budding of the fruit - because if, as we have already learned, the Hashrashah (taking root) of the crops is the required stage for them to become permitted, then it is obvious that one does not need to wait for either the Chanatah or the Hanatzah of fruit to permit it.

(b) It must therefore refer to - the Hanatzah and Chanatah of the leaves.

(c) And the She'eilah is - which one of them is equivalent to the Hashrashah of the crops (that permits it with the bringing of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem).

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

(a) Rava bar Rav Chanin asked whether the Omer will permit wheat that one planted in the ground to be eaten. Initially, we dismiss this She'eilah on the basis of the next Mishnah - which makes a clear distinction in this regard between crops that took root before the Omer was brought and those that didn't.

(b) We therefore establish the case - when the wheat had taken already root before it was cut the first time.

(c) And the She'eilah is - whether the Omer will ...

1. ... permit it - because it did after all, take root before the Omer (and replanting it in the ground is no different than placing it in a jar).
2. ... not permit it - because when they replanted it, it became Bateil to the ground and would therefore not be permitted until the following Omer.

(d) He also asked whether that wheat would be subject to Ona'ah (overcharging by more than a sixth) or not - since according to the second side of the She'eilah, it has a Din of Karka, and Karka is not subject to Ona'ah (as we learned in Bava Metzi'a).

(a) The She'eilah would not be valid if it referred to a case where the seller planted only five Kur instead of six, since Rava ruled that 'Davar she'ba'Midah, she'be'Mishkal, ve'she'ba'Minyan - Afilu Pachos mi'Chedei Ona'ah Chozer' - because the concept of Mechilah (foregoing a small discrepancy [the basis of a discrepancy of less than a sixth being fully valid]) is simply inapplicable there where the parties stipulated exact measurements.

(b) Conseqently, the She'eilah would then be negated - seeing as the purchaser stipulated an exact amount ...

(c) ... turning it into a case of Bitul Mekach (and not Ona'ah), which applies to Karka no less than to Metaltelin.

(d) The case must therefore be - where the purchaser asked for the wheat to be planted properly, but the seller distributed the seeds badly (thereby devaluing the crops), and here too, the Halachah will depend upon whether the wheat has the Din of Karka or Metaltelin, as we explained.

(a) The third She'eilah Rava bar Rav Chanin posed, also based on the original question as to whether wheat that is cut before having taken root a second time is considered Karka or Metaltelin is - whether it is subject to a Shevu'ah (if the seller admits to selling part of the claim, or where there is one witness to support the claim).

(b) The basis of this She'eilah is - the principle 'Ein Nishba'in al ha'Karka'os' (as we also learned in Bava Metzi'a).

(c) Rami bar Chama then asks what the Din will be regarding grains of wheat that one finds in animal's dung. He cannot be asking whether they are ...

1. ... subject to Tum'as Ochlin, due to a Beraisa which draws a distinction between - whether the owner only *had in mind* to eat them (in which case they are not subject to Tum'as Ochlin) or whether he actually removed them (in which case they are).
2. ... eligible to be brought as Menachos in their present form - because based on the Pasuk in Malachi "Hakriveihu Na le'Pechasecha?" (Would you give that to *your* king) - it would not be acceptable, whatever its status.

(d) So we establish the case when the owner re-planted them, in which case they are no longer disgusting. Nevertheless, they might not be eligible to bring as a Minchah - because grains that have passed through the digestive system of an animal are weak and do not grow well.

(e) The outcome of both this She'eilah and those of Rava bar Rav Chanin is - 'Teiku'.

(a) Rami bar Chama asked what the Din will be regarding an Egyptian wickerwork basket that an elephant swallowed whole and then exuded by way of its back-passage. The She'ilah cannot be whether the basket loses its Din of Tum'ah, due to a Mishnah in Keilim, where the Tana rules ...

1. ... that Keilim can become subject to Tum'ah with Machshavah alone (such a large piece of leather designated to make shoes, which the owner subsequently decides to use as a table).
2. ... that they cannot lose their Tum'ah once they are already Tamei - unless one actually effects a major change in them (e.g. by breaking them).

(b) So we establish the case - by an elephant that swallowed Lulav leaves, and after it exuded them, a wickerwork basket was manufactured from them.

(c) And the She'eilah is whether it is ...

1. ... not subject even to Tum'ah mi'de'Rabbanan - because seeing as it passed through the elephant's digestive system, it is called 'Ikul' (digested), and is considered dung, which is one of the three things listed in the Mishnah in Keilim that are not subject to Tum'ah (even mi'de'Rabbanan).
2. ... subject to Tum'ah (even mi'd'Oraysa) - because since (in spite of the elephant's digestive system) the basket emerged unchanged, it is not called 'Ikul', and is therefore not considered dung, but wood, which is subject to Tum'ah (as long as it is in the form of a receptacle).

(d) The two other kinds of Keilim that are not subject to Tum'ah, even mi'de'Rabbanan - are Keilim made of stone and of earth.

6)

(a) We try to resolve the She'eilah from a ruling of Ula quoting Rebbi Yehoshua ben Yehotzadak regarding the story of two wolves - that swallowed two children in Eiver ha'Yarden.

(b) The Chachamim (quoted by Rebbi Yehoshua ben Yehotzadak) ruled there - that the Basar is Tahor (because it is called Ikul, even though the Basar emerged whole).

(c) We try to prove from this - that regarding our She'eilah too, this is called 'Ikul', even though the leaves came out whole.

(d) We refute the proof ...

1. ... from there however, because 'Basar is different' - since (compared to Lulav leaves) it is soft.
2. ... from the Seifa 've'Tim'u es ha'Atzamos' (a proof that it is not considered 'Ikul') - because (again compared to Lulav leaves) bones are hard.

(a) Rebbi Zeira asked what the Din will be regarding wheat that fell from the clouds - which entered the clouds when they sucked up a boat transporting wheat from the ocean (see also Tosfos DH 'Chitin').

(b) The She'eilah cannot be whether they are eligible to be used for Menachos - since there is no reason why not.

(c) So we establish the She'eilah as to whether they are eligible to be used for the Sh'tei ha'Lechem. Based on the Pasuk "mi'Moshvoseichem" ('la'Afukei Chutz la'Aretz'), they might ...

1. ... nevertheless be eligible - because they did not come from Chutz la'Aretz.
2. ... be disqualified, too - since they did not come from Eretz Yisrael either.

(d) In answer to the question whether such a thing is feasible, we answer 'In, bar Adi Tay'a Nechisa lei Rum Kizba Chiti bi'Telasa Parsi' - meaning that it happened to bar Ada the Arab, who received a load of wheat measuring three Parshah by one Tefach deep in this way.

(a) Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi asked what the Din will be if, before the Omer, one uprooted stalks of wheat that were one third grown, and replanted them after the Omer. If they had grown less than that - it would be considered 'Shachas' (which is only fit for animals and), which is not permitted by the Omer.

(b) The She'eilah now is whether the Omer ...

1. ... permits those - because one goes after the Ikar (the initial growth), which grew before the Omer, or ...
2. ... after the Tosefes (which grew afterwards), in which case, they are not permitted until next year's Omer.

(c) We try to resolve the She'eilah from a statement of Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan in connection with Kil'ayim - which is normally Bateil in two hundred.

(a) Rebbi ...

1. ... Avahu rules in a case where one grafted a branch of Orlah with fruit into an old tree, and the fruit increased by two hundred percent after it was grafted - that the fruit nevertheless remains forbidden (because of Orlah).
2. ... Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini Amar Rebbi Yonasan rules likewise, that in the case of an baby onion that was planted in a vineyard, and that grew by two hundred percent after the vineyard had been uprooted - the onion remains forbidden.

(b) The reason for these two rulings is - because we go after the Ikar (and not after the Tosefes).

(c) The Ikar is not Bateil in two hundred in this case - because they are all part of the same of the same fruit.

(d) We refute the proof from there that we go after the Ikar (in which case the stalks of wheat will be permitted - because we are not sure whether the above Rabbanan go after the Ikar out of conviction (in which case they will do the same in our case too, even though it means going le'Kula); or whether they do so out of doubt (in wsich case they will go le'Chumra both ways, and forbid the stalks in our case, in case we are supposed to go after the growth).

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