Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) SOMETHING FITTING TO BE REDEEMED

(a) Likewise, he holds that anything fitting to be redeemed, it is considered as if it was redeemed.
(b) (Beraisa - R. Shimon): A red heifer receives Tum'ah of foods because there was a time when it was fitting to be eaten.

1. (Reish Lakish): R. Shimon holds that a red heifer may be redeemed even (after slaughter) by the wood (when it is about to be burned).
2. It receives Tum'ah even though it was never actually permitted to eat, but it was fitting to be eaten had it been redeemed - since it could have been redeemed, we considered it as if it was redeemed.

(a) R. Yochanan (bottom of 76A) did not answer as Reish Lakish - he wanted to establish the Mishnah even by unblemished animals;
(b) Question: Why didn't Reish Lakish answer as R. Yochanan?
(c) Answer: "And he slaughtered it or sold it" - a thief is only liable (4 or 5) for slaughtering if he would have been liable for selling.

1. Since unblemished Kodshim cannot be sold, a thief is not liable for slaughtering them.

(d) R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish are consistent with what they said elsewhere.

1. (R. Yochanan): R. Shimon obligates a thief that sells a Treifah - even though he would be exempt for slaughtering it (since this does not permit the meat), he is liable for selling it;
2. (Reish Lakish): R. Shimon exempts him - since he is exempt for slaughtering it, he is exempt for selling it.

(e) Question (R. Yochanan - Beraisa): A thief stole Kilayim (a crossbreed) and slaughtered it, or a Treifah and sold it - he pays 4 or 5.

1. Suggestion: This is as R. Shimon - even though he would be exempt for slaughtering it, he is liable for selling it.

(f) Answer (Reish Lakish): No, it is as Chachamim.
(g) Question: If as Chachamim (who say that one is liable for slaughter even if the meat is not permitted), he is liable even for slaughtering a Treifah!

1. Counter-question: (Even) if you will say it is R. Shimon, he should be liable for selling Kilayim!
2. Answer: You must say, the Tana mentioned slaughtering Kilayim, but the same is true of selling it;

(h) Answer: Also by a Treifah, Chachamim mentioned selling it, the same applies to slaughtering it!
(i) Rejection (R. Yochanan): We understand if the Mishnah is as R. Shimon - since the Tana could only teach 1 thing (selling), he also taught only 1 (slaughter) by Kilayim (even though both apply);

1. But if the Mishnah is as Chachamim, they should be taught together - for slaughtering or selling a Treifah or Kilayim, he pays 4 or 5!
2. This is left difficult (for Reish Lakish).

(a) Question: Why does he pay 4 or 5 for Kilayim - the Torah said "Seh" (a sheep or goat);

1. (Rava): Wherever the Torah says "Seh", this excludes Kilayim.

(b) Answer: It says "Ox or Seh" - to include Kilayim.
(c) Question: Is it really true that 'or' always comes to include?!

1. (Beraisa): "An ox or lamb" - to exclude Kilayim; "or goat" - to exclude a Nidmeh (an animal that does not resemble its parents (a child of 2 sheep that looks like a goat)).

(d) Answer (Rava): 'Or' changes what we would have otherwise understood from the verse.

1. By theft, it says "Ox or Seh" - mating them cannot produce Kilayim, one would have thought that 4 or 5 does not apply to Kilayim - 'or' teaches, it does apply;
2. By Kodshim, it says "Lamb or goat" - mating them can produce Kilayim, one would have thought that Kilayim are valid sacrifices - 'or' teaches, they are not.
3. Question: But by Kodshim it also says "Ox or lamb", which cannot produce Kilayim - we should say, 'or' comes to include Kilayim!
4. Answer: Since the second 'or' in the verse comes to exclude, also the first 'or' excludes.
5. Question: To the contrary! We should say, since the first 'or' comes to include, also the second 'or'!
6. Answer: No - as we learned is reasonable, after excluding Kilayim, we must also exclude Nidmeh;

i. But if the first 'or' comes to include Kilayim, all the more so a Nidmeh is a valid sacrifice, we do not need another 'or'!