Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Nachman ... Amar Rav discusses a ring of Avodah-Zarah that fell into a hundred rings, one of which then fell the Sea. A ring of Avodah-Zarah is - one which adorned the idol.

(b) He rules that all the remaining rings are permitted - because we assume the one that fell into the sea to have been the forbidden one.

(c) Rava asked Rav Nachman on this from our Mishnah 'Afilu Achas be'Ribu Yamusu Kulan' - when, according to Rav, as soon as the first one dies, the rest ought to be permitted.

(d) To answer Rava's Kashya, Rav Nachman establishes Rav - like Rebbi Eliezer, who permits all the heads on the basis of the one that was sacrificed.

(a) The reasoning behind Rebbi Elazar's statement that Rebbi Eliezer only permits bringing the remaining heads two by two is - because we assume that just as one of the rings must be a ring of Heter, so too, is the other one ('Migu').

(b) Rav Nachman reconciles Rav's previous ruling (which he himself just quoted) permitting all the rings S'tam - by explaining that although he had not specifically said so, Rav only permits selling the rings two by two.

(a) If a ring of Avodah-Zarah fell into a hundred rings and, after they rings were divided into groups of sixty and forty, one out of the group of forty fell into another batch of rings, Rav permits the latter batch - because he assumes the forbidden ring to still be among the majority (the group of sixty rings).

(b) He initially forbade the same batch of rings assuming that it was one of the group of *sixty rings* from which the ring fell - for the same reason (because he assumes the Isur to have been among those sixty from which the ring fell).

(c) The problem with this latter ruling is - that we still ought to permit the ring which fell into the latter batch, on the assumption that the forbidden ring is still among the fifty-nine remaining rings.

(d) The distinction that Rav really made between the two groups is - that if the group of forty were to fall into another batch, it would be permitted (because we assume the forbidden ring to be in the group of sixty; whereas if the group of sixty fell ... , it would be forbidden.

(a) If for example, the forty separated from the sixty without falling into another batch of rings - they would remain Asur according to everybody, even Rebbi Eliezer ...

(b) ... because this latter case is a question of 'Bitul be'Rov', which we do not say by Avodah-Zarah, whereas 'S'fek S'feika' we do.

(a) Shmuel disagrees with Rav's previous ruling. He maintains - that every 'Safek and S'fek S'feika of Avodah-Zarah is forbidden.

(b) The Beraisa rules that in a case where ...

1. ... a cup of Avodah-Zarah fell into a storeroom full of cups - all the cups are forbidden.
2. ... one of those cups then fell into ten thousand cups, one of which fell into another ten thousand cups (see Tosfos DH 'Peirash') - they are all permitted (because of 'S'fek S'feika')

(c) Shmuel reconciles his opinion (forbidding even 'S'fek S'feika' by Avodah-Zarah) with this Beraisa - by citing a Machlokes Tana'im in the matter, as we shall now see (and by aligning himself with the Tana who argues with that Beraisa [as we shall now see]).

(a) Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, maintains that Rimonei Baden render forbidden even a 'Kol she'Hu', even if it is a S'fek S'feika - with regard to all Isurim (Orlah, Terumah ... ).

(b) Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah Amar Rebbi Shimon - is lenient in the case of S'fek S'feika - despite the fact that Rimonei Baden is one of the six things that are not subject to Bitul.

(c) The problem in establishing Shmuel like Rebbi Yehudah is - that Rebbi Yehudah is strict with regard to all Isurim, not just by Avodah-Zarah.

(d) Nor can we answer that Shmuel holds like Rebbi Shimon who agrees with Rebbi Yehudah with regard to Avodah-Zarah - because in another Beraisa, he specifically incorporates Avodah-Zarah in the leniency of S'fek S'feika.

(a) We finally solve the problem - by establishing Shmuel like Rebbi Shimon regarding other Isurim, but like Rebbi Yehudah regarding Avodah-Zarah.

(b) When Rebbi Shimon permits S'fek S'feika by Rimonei Baden, the Lashon he employs is ' ... u'mi'Ribu li'Sheloshah, u'mi'Sheloshah le'Makom Acher' - the three includes the pomegranate of Isur that fell into the two.

(c) Alternatively, Shmuel holds like Rebbi Eliezer, who rules - that bread that is baked in an oven that has been heated with wood from an Asheirah that twice got mixed up with other loaves remains forbidden, until the owner takes the value of the benefit he derives from the baking and throws it into the Yam ha'Melach. Rebbi Eliezer then, is the Tana who forbids even S'fek S'feika by Avodah-Zarah (and he serves as Shmuel's source).

(d) This last answer might refer to Rebbi Shimon - who then concurs with Rebbi Eliezer, who only permits Avodah-Zarah two at a time (as we learned earlier). On that basis, all the pomegranates will only be permitted if the forbidden pomegranate fell into three other pomegranates.

8)

(a) Resh Lakish rules that if a barrel of Terumah became mixed up with a hundred barrels of ordinary wine, and one of them then fell into the sea - all the barrels are permitted (as we explained before, according to Rav).

(b) This ruling is synonymous with that of Rav Nachman Amar Rav regarding a ring of Avodah-Zarah. In spite of having taught us ...

1. ... Rav's ruling, it is necessary to add that of Resh Lakish - to teach us that we rely on the one that got mixed up being the Isur, even by Terumah, which is a 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin' (something that can be rectified).
2. ... Resh Lakish's ruling, it is nevertheless necessary to add that of Rav - even though a ring is so small that one does realize that it has fallen into the batch, in which case one may come to permit it initially, even without it having falling into it.

(c) Rabah restricts Resh Lakish's ruling to a barrel of wine (but not to a fig) - because of the latter's size, as we just explained according to Resh Lakish. In Rabah's opinion, Rav holds like Resh Lakish, but Resh Lakish does not hold like Rabah.

(d) Rav Yosef - holds that just as a fig renders Asur (despite its size), so too, does it become Bateil.

(a) Rebbi Elazar ruled that if a barrel of Terumah wine fell into a hundred barrels of ordinary wine - one may open one of the barrels and remove one hundredth of the total from the wine (which must be given to a Kohen).

(b) When Rav Dimi told Rav Nachman about it, he asked - why the Mishnah in Orlah (that we quoted above) then incorporates closed barrels in the list of things that are not subject to Bitul, when all it to permit it is to open the barrels.

(c) He therefore amended the initial statement to read (not that 'one may open one of the barrels ... ', but) 'if one of the barrels was (inadvertently) opened ... '.

(a) In a case where a barrel of Terumah wine became mixed up with a hundred and fifty barrels of ordinary wine, and a hundred of those barrels were subsequently opened, Rebbi Oshaya ...

1. ... permits the hundred barrels once one hundredth of the wine has been removed.
2. ... forbids the remaining fifty barrels, until such time as they too, are opened.

(b) The Chidush is - that we do not permit the fifty barrels automatically on the grounds that the Asur barrel is among the hundred (like Rav Yehudah Amar Rav said earlier [Shitah Mekubetzes]).

(a) Our Mishnah rules that if Zevachim became mixed up with Rove'a, Nirva, Muktzah ... or T'reifah, 'Yir'u ad she'Yista'avu'. The problem with 'T'reifah' is - that if it identifiable, then why can he not simply remove it, whereas if it is not, then how does know that it is a T'reifah?

(b) de'Bei Rebbi Yanai establishes our Mishnah by where the Korban was pierced by a thorn, and the T'reifah animal, by a wolf, in a way that - the holes penetrated the flesh, but did not pierce through to the cavity (otherwise it would be T'reifah in any case).

(c) The former is not a Ba'al-Mum anyway - because it is curable.

(a) According to Resh Lakish, the T'reifah animal fell down from a roof (and its T'reifus cannot be detected externally). And the case is - where the animal was unable to stand up by itself, and was subsequently Shechted within twenty-four hours.

(b) Examining the animal by seeing if it stood up by itself would not have helped either - because according to Resh Lakish, even if it had, it would still need to live twenty-four hours (and even if it actually walked, it would still require examination).

(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah establishes 'T'reifah' by the baby of a T'reifah like Rebbi Eliezer, who rules - that the baby of a T'reifah is disqualified from going on the Mizbe'ach, like the T'reifah itself.

(d) The reason that ...

1. ... Resh Lakish and Rebbi Yirmiyah reject Rebbi Yanai's answer is - because an animal that has been pierced by a thorn, and one that has been pierced by a wolf are easily distinguishable, since the former is round, whereas the latter is elongated (as caused by the movement of the wolf's claw).
2. ... Rebbi Yanai and Rebbi Yirmiyah reject Resh Lakish's answer is - because they hold that once the animal stands up, it does not need to live twenty-four hours, and once it walks, it no longer requires examination.
3. ... Rebbi Yanai and Resh Lakish reject Rebbi Yirmiyah's answer - because they prefer to avoid establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Eliezer, who is a Shamuti.