Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Abaye, the Pasuk "ve'Cheilev T'reifah" - comes to declare it (the Cheilev) Tahor after the animal's death, because otherwise. we would have learned that it is Tamei from a non-Kasher animal (which, like T'reifah) is forbidden whilst it is still alive, rather than from a Neveilah, which is not.

(b) This would enable us to reinstate Rebbi Yehudah's original D'rashah from "u'Tereifah" by a bird ("Le'havi T'reifah she'Shachtah, she'Metam'ah").

(c) This answer is unacceptable however - because here again, we could make the parallel D'rashah from "u'T'reifah" (to prevent us learning that it is Metamei from Of Tamei).

(d) In any event, we could not learn a Kasher ...

1. ... animal or bird that became a T'reifah from a non-Kasher one - since the latter was never permitted (whereas the former was), or even if ...
2. ... it was born a T'reifah - since some of the same species are born Kasher (which is not the case by a non-Kasher animal).

(a) Rava finally learns from "Cheilev Neveilah ve'Cheilev T'reifah" - that (despite the principle of 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur') the Isur of Neveilah and that of T'reifah takes effect even though the Isur of Cheilev preceded them.

(b) And the Torah finds it necessary to insert them both, because had it written only "Cheilev ...

1. ... Neveilah", we would have thought that Neveilah takes effect only - because it is also Metamei, whereas T'reifah is not.
2. ... T'reifah", we would have thought that T'reifah takes effect - only because it becomes forbidden already in the animal's lifetime, whereas Neveilah does not.

(c) We have finally proved - the validity of Rebbi Yehudah's D'rashah from "u'Treifah" (since this time, the D'rashah from "Cheilev T'reifah" pertains specifically to Cheilev, and has no parallel D'rashah that one could learn from "u'T'reifah" that is written by a bird.

(a) Rebbi Meir learns from "u'T'reifah" the D'rashah that we already cited earlier (i.e. 'to preclude the Shechitah of a Chulin bird bi'Fenim') from Tum'ah. Rebbi Yehudah learns this from another Pasuk (where the Torah also writes "Neveilah u'T'reifah", both in connection with a bird).

(b) Rebbi Meir learns from the latter Pasuk, to preclude a non-Kasher bird from Tum'ah (since T'reifah does not pertain to it). Rebbi Yehudah learns this from - "Neveilah", which precludes a Tamei bird from Tum'ah (in the same way as "u'Tereifah" does).

(c) Rebbi Meir learns from ,,,

1. ... the first "Neveilah" - that the Shiur Tum'ah of a bird (be'Beis ha'Beli'ah) is a 'k'Zayis' (like Neveilah).
2. ... the second "Neveilah" - that one only becomes Tamei if one eats it 'bi'Chedei Achilas P'ras (the time it takes to eat three [or four] egg-volumes), like the Isur of Neveilah (but not if it takes longer).

(d) This latter D'rashah is necessary, because we might otherwise have thought - that since the Tum'ah of 'Beis ha'Beli'ah is a Chidush, it will not require a 'K'dei Achilas P'ras', but will be Metamei the person who eats it, irrespective of how long it takes.

(a) The Torah writes (in connection with the exemption from Tum'ah of the Cheilev of an animal) "ve'Cheilev Neveilah ve'Cheilev T'reifah". The Beraisa learns from Shechitah that the Torah must be referring specifically to the Cheilev of a Kasher animal - with a Binyan Av, that the Cheilev of a Neveilah is Tahor, just like Shechitah is Metaher specifically a Kasher animal.

(b) The Tana suggests that, on the other hand, maybe we learn the opposite from Neveilah. When the Tana says 'Mah ke'she'Tihar mi'K'lal Neveilah, bi'Temei'ah ve'Lo bi'Tehorah' - he is referring to a Neveilah of a bird, which is Metamei by a Tahor bird, but Tamei by a non-Kasher one.

(c) Seeing as the exemption of Cheilev from Tum'ah could now be referring to the Cheilev of a Kasher animal or of a non-Kasher one (a Beheimah Temei'ah) depending on whether one learns it from Shechitah or from Neveilah, the Beraisa resolves the She'eilah from the word "T'reifah'' - precluding a Beheimah Temei'ah, which is not subject to T'reifah.

(d) And from "ve'Achol Lo Sochluhu" (written in connection with the exemption of Cheilev from Tum'ah), the Tana goes on to preclude - the Cheilev of a Chayah, whose Cheilev is permitted together with the Basar (and which now also becomes Tamei together with it).

5)

(a) We learnt in the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Mah ke'she'Metaher mi'K'lal Neveilah bi'Temei'ah ve'Lo bi'Tehorah'. Rav Ya'akov bar Aba extrapolated from there - that the Neveilah of a non-Kasher animal is not Metamei.

(b) Rava was surprised at him making such a mistake" - since the Seifa of our Mishnah is talking about a Nivlas Of Tamei (and not a Nivlas Beheimah Temei'ah).

(a) Rebbi Yochanan qualifies Rebbi Meir's ruling that the Melikah of a T'reifah is Tahor by restricting it to Temimin, but not to Ba'alei Mumin - which are not subject to Melikah in the first place.

(b) Rebbi Elazar says - that there is no difference, and that Rebbi Meir considers both Tahor.

(c) In fact, Rebbi Elazar carries this even further. According to him - Rebbi Meir declares even ducks and chickens Tahor (even though they are not fit to go on the Mizbe'ach) ...

(d) ... because a T'reifah is not fit to go on the Mizbe'ach either, yet Rebbi Meir declares it Tahor, so why should they be any different.

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked whether Rebbi Meir will also declare Tahor a goat whose neck the elders broke instead of a calf. Rebbi Yirmiyah holds - that Rebbi Meir declares the Eglah Arufah itself Tahor, since breaking its neck is its Hechsher Mitzvah, just as the Melikah of a bird removes the Tum'as Neveilah because that is its Hechsher.

(b) The She'eilah is then, whether the goat ...

1. ... is Tahor - because it is an animal, just like the calf.
2. ... not be Tahor - because it is a different species than a calf (see Tosfos DH 'Aval').

(c) When Abaye asked Rav Dimi on what basis Rebbi Yirmiyah compares the Eglah Arufah (which is after all, not Kodshim) to a Kodshim bird, the latter cited Amri de'Bei Rebbi Yanai, who said - that since the Torah wrote "Kaparah" by it, like it did by Kodshim, it is compared to Kodshim (in this regard) and is Tahor.

(a) From the Pasuk "Ki *Kol* Ochel *Cheilev*, the Beraisa incorporates - the of a Shor ha'Niskal and an Eglah Arufah in the preclusion from Tum'ah.

(b) Rav Nasan Avuhah de'Rav Huna asks from here on Amri de'Bei Rebbi Yanai - that if the Eglah Arufah itself is Tahor, why do we need a Pasuk to declare its Cheilev Tahor?

(c) We reply - that the Beraisa is not speaking about a calf whose neck was broken (which is its Hechsher [like the case of Amri de'Bei Rebbi Yanai]) - but in a case where it was Shechted (which is not)

(d) The problem with this however, is - that, if that is so, why does the Shechitah not remove Tum'as Neveilah (like it always does), irrespective of whether it is Machshir it to be eaten or to derive benefit from it or not?

(a) So we establish it when the calf died by itself, in which case the animal itself is Tamei. Nevertheless, we require a Pasuk to declare the Cheilev Tahor - because, we might have thought that the Cheilev of an Eglah Arufah is different than the Cheilev of any other Neveilah, which is Tahor - because, since the Eglah Arufah is Asur be'Hana'ah, it does not belong to the category of "Ye'aseh le'Chol Melachah", mentioned there in the Pasuk.

(b) We extrapolate from here that the Eglah Arufah must be Asur be'Hana'ah already in its lifetime - because otherwise, since it was not Shechted, why would it otherwise be Asur be'Hana'ah?

(c) Rebbi Yanai specifically said that it was, but he could not recall what it was that rendered it Asur. His colleagues reminded him - that taking it down to the valley (to have its neck broken) is the point that renders it forbidden (as we learned in Kidushin).

Next daf