Previous daf

1)

(a) Rabah bar Rav Huna quoting Rav says that if one closes the ends of a stream, the fish in the stream are permitted on Yom-Tov - because closing up the stream is considered a proper Hachanah (even though by birds, one needs to specify which birds one wants. Presumably, this is either because here, he did a proper Ma'aseh, or because here, one is unlikely to pick up one fish and change his mind, as we learned by birds - on Daf 10a.)

(b) Rav Chisda (who thinks that Rav's reason is because the fish cannot escape) deduces from Rav's Din - that wild baby animals that are born in an orchard, are permitted (because an orchard, like a blocked stream, is well- guarded).

(c) Rav Nachman objected to Rav Chisda's comparison - because, in his opinion, Rav's leniency is based on the fact that he did a Ma'aseh (as we explained above), and not just because the fish are well-guarded.

(d) Rav Huna, Rav Chisda and Rav Nachman - were all disciples of Rav.

(a) The Beraisa, which specifically requires preparation (like Rav Nachman), includes in the testimony of Sh'maya and Avtalyon, the obligation to tie the wings of a free bird that one prepared before Yom-Tov - to avoid confusing the baby with its mother (which he did not prepare).

(b) Initially, we reconcile this Beraisa (which *requires* preparation for wild baby animals that are born in an orchard) with another Beraisa, which permits it even *without* preparation - by establishing it by the mother, and the second Beraisa, by the new-born baby.

(c) We reject this suggestion however - on the grounds that, as far as the mother is concerned, *preparation* before Yom-Tov would not suffice; it would actually need to be *caught*.

(d) So we establish both Beraisos by the baby - the former speaks by a garden that is far from town, in which case, *without preparation*, the baby would be *forbidden*, since the owner would not have had his mind on it; whereas the latter Beraisa, which *permits* the baby even *without preparation*, speaks by a garden which is close to the town (See Tosfos DH 'Kahn', who explain why we cannot answer Rav Nachman's initial Kashya on Rav Huna in the same way).

(a) Even birds that were prepared before Yom-Tov (by tying their wings or by picking them up) are nevertheless forbidden on Yom-Tov, if they are in a tree - because we are afraid that one may come to climb the tree in order to fetch them.

(b) They are not however, forbidden - if they are in a house or a pit.

(c) Birds that one finds on an ordinary weekday with their wings tied, are considered the property of the person who tied them, and are therefore forbidden because of Gezel.

(a) According to the Tana Kama, one is permitted to Shecht an animal that is in danger of dying (but is not a Tereifah) on Yom-Tov - provided there is sufficient time to *roast* a k'Zayis from it and eat it.

(b) Rebbi Akiva maintains that they are permitted even if there is sufficient time to eat a k'Zayis *raw* from the location of its Shechitah.

(c) It is forbidden to transport the animal from the field to the house on a pole carried by two people - because it looks as if they are taking it to market, and is therefore a denigration of Yom-Tov.

(d) One brings the animal to the house by cutting it up and carrying the limbs home (even though this method will entail more journeys on Yom-Tov).

(a) 'Hefshet' and 'Nitu'ach' - are stripping the animal and cutting it up, respectively.

(b) From the fact that 'Hefshet' and 'Nitu'ach' had to be performed on the Korban Olah - Rami bar Aba learns that if that is the way we bring an animal to Hashem, then that is what we should do before *we* eat meat.

(a) Rav Huna says that ...

1. ... before an animal has been Shechted - it has a Chazakah that it s forbidden (because of 'Eiver min ha'Chai', meaning that it will not become 'Kasher' until one is certain that it has been properly Shechted).
2. ... after it has been Shechted - it has a Chazakah that it is 'Kasher' (and will not therefore need to be examined for Tereifos).

(b) Rami bar Aba in 1b. might be saying that after the animal has been Shechted, one is *obligated* to strip and cut it up, in order to inspect it for Tereifos - in which case, he will be coming to argue with Rav Huna.

(c) This cannot be the case however - because Rebbi Chiya learns a Beraisa, which interprets Rebbi Akiva's statement in our Mishnah ('Afilu k'Zayis Chai mi'Beis Tevichasah') to mean that one may even eat a k'Zayis raw from the location of the *place on the neck where it was Shechted* (which clearly permits eating from the animal *before* the Hefshet and Nitu'ach.

(d) If not for the Beraisa, 'mi'Beis Tevichasah' might have meant 'from the intestines' (where the food is cut up and digested) - *after* the Hefshet and Nitu'ach.

7)

(a) So we conclude that Rami bar Aba's Din belongs to Hilchos Derech Eretz. The Beraisa also teaches that one should ...

1. ... eat garlic and leek - from the end where the leaves grow, and not from the top.
2. ... not drink a glass of wine in one gulp.

(b) Someone who drinks a cup of wine ...

1. ... in one gulp - is a glutton.
2. ... in three gulps - is conceited.
3. ... in two gulps - is a Ba'al Derech Eretz.

(c)

1. A Chartzuba, which is a plant which they would use to mark the border between two fields. It cuts the feet (i.e. will prosecute when they are judged by the Heavenly Court in time to come) of people who perform all manner of theft - through its 'honesty': its roots grow straight down, so as not to encroach on other people's property.
2. A tree of Orlah will cut the feet of butchers - who cannot wait to eat the meat (before the animal has been stripped and cut up - even though we learned above that it is not forbidden to eat meat in such a way), and Bo'alei Nidos - who cannot wait for their wives to Tovel; whereas the owner of an Orlah-tree has to wait four years (or even five) before he is permitted to eat from the fruit of his tree.
3. A Turmus-bean cuts the feet of Yisrael as they are described in T'nach (in Shoftim) - because, unlike the bitter Turmus-bean (which needs to be cooked seven times, but at least after that, it becomes sweet), they continue to sin even after they have served idols seven times and been punished for it (They persist in treating Hashem as an insignificant entity).

(a) The character-trait that Yisrael possess that inspired Hashem to give the Torah to *them* - is 'Azus' (because they are tough or brazen), implying 1. that the Torah will not destroy them, but perfect them, and 2. that they need to be tempered, because otherwise, they will conquer the world.

(b) The Torah writes in ve'Zos ha'Berachah "mi'Yemino Esh-Das Lamo". Rebbi Yishmael in a Beraisa, explains that Yisrael are worthy of receiving a law of fire. His second explanation is - the law (Torah) of these people is fire ('Das Eish'), and if it had not been given to them, no nation would be able to stand up to them (These two explanations seem to correspond with the two explanations that we gave in a.).

(c) This conforms with Resh Lakish - who said that Yisrael are the most invincible of all the nations (though it is not clear why Resh Lakish should not also be referring to the fact that they become perfected through Torah, as we explained. (See also Agados Maharsha, who learns in his final explanation that 'Az' means stubborn, which will cover all the 'Azin' mentioned here). The most brazen of all ...

1. ... the beasts - is the dog.
2. ... and the birds - the chicken. And according to others, the most brazen of ...
3. ... the small animals - is the goat.
4. ... and the trees - the caper-bush (see Tosfos DH 'u'Tzelaf').

(a) What a blind man and a shepherd have in common - is that both are forbidden to go out into the street with their sticks, because it is 'weekdayish' and a denigration of Yom-Tov.

(b) The Beraisa forbids 'a chair' on Yom-Tov. Nevertheless, they carried Rav Huna from Hini to Shili and back, and Shmuel from the sun to the shade and back - because Rav Huna and Shmuel were both needed by the community (to give the Derashah), in which case, it was permitted.

(c) Even if a 'seat' is to carry someone whom the community needs is forbidden - if they place their arms on each other's shoulders and carry the chair on top of that, since that is a very 'weekdayish' and public way of transporting somebody.

(a) They permitted Yalsa to be carried on a chair even on the shoulders - Yalsa was the wife of Rav Nachman.

(b) They permitted it - on the grounds that she was afraid to be carried in any other way. We need to add, writes Tosfos, that the community needed her, otherwise, even that would be forbidden.

(c) It might also be permitted to carry someone on the shoulders - if it will minimize the trouble that carrying him through the crowd normally entails.