Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan asked Resh Lakish (who holds 'Akimas Sefasav Lo Havi Ma'aseh') from the Mishnah in Temurah, where the Tana, commenting on the Reisha 'ha'Kol Mamirin, Echad Anashim, ve'Echad Nashim ... ' - explains that the Tana is not coming to permit declaring a Temurah, because, on the contrary, one receives Malkos for doing so.

(b) Resh Lakish answers - by establishing the Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah (who holds 'La'av she'Ein o Ma'aseh, Lokin Alav').

(c) Rebbi Yehudah extrapolates from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Sosiru Mimenu ad Boker, ve'ha'Nosar Mimenu ad Boker ba'Eish Tisrofu" - implying that one is Patur from Malkus only because it is a La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei' (a La'av that can be remedied by performing an Asei), but that otherwise, he would be subject to Malkos (despite the fact that it is a 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh').

(a) 'ha'Kol Mamirin' (in the Mishnah in Temurah) comes to include - an heir, whose father died leaving behind a Korban, and who will receive Malkos should he declare a Temurah on it.

(b) In spite of the fact that Rebbi Yehudah there precludes an heir from declaring a Temurah on his father's Korban, we establish that the Tana holds like Rebbi Yehudah - as regards 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aser', but not as regards the Temurah of an heir.

(a) The Beraisa sentences someone who contravened the La'av of Chasimah to Malkos, and requires him to pay four Kabin for a cow - and three for a donkey.

(b) The problem with this Beraisa is - that it clashes with the principle 'Eino Meis u'Meshalem, Eino Lokeh u'Meshalem', which we learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei (in connection with Malkos) "K'dei Rish'aso" (one receives punishment for one evil, but not for two).

(c) Abaye establishes the Beraisa like Rebbi Meir who holds - 'Lokeh u'Meshalem'.

(a) Rava answers with the words 'Esnan Asrah Torah, va'Afilu Ba al Imo' - meaning that the prohibition of bringing an Esnan Zonah on the Mizbe'ach applies even if the woman concerned is one's mother. In that case, we must say that even though the man is Chayav Miysah, he is nevertheless morally obligated to pay his mother the Esnan, because if he wasn't, then it would be an ordinary gift, and there would be no reason why it should be forbidden to bring as a Korban.

(b) Alternatively, even assuming that he is not obligated to pay her the Esnan, it might still fall under the category of Esnan - because in the event that his mother seized it, she would be permitted to keep it.

(c) According to Rav Papa, Beis-Din will even force the Chosem to pay - because the obligation to feed the animal (which began when he made the Kinyan Meshichah on the animal) preceded his contravention of the La'av.

(a) They asked Rav Papa two She'eilos in the Beis Hamedrash of Rav Papa bar Aba. When they asked him whether ...

1. ... one may knead a dough with milk - he replied in the negative (because one is likely to then eat the bread with meat).
2. ... one may lead two different animals into the same pen - he replied in the negative too, and for the same reason (that one is then likely to then interbreed them).

(b) Rav Papa's ruling in the case of kneading a dough with milk was based on a Beraisa - where the Tana also forbids smearing an oven with the fat-tail of a sheep, in case one then goes on to eat the bread with milk dishes.

(c) In a case where one contravenes either of these Halachos - the Tana forbids the bread to be eaten (even 'dipped in salt' without meat or milk dishes).

(a) Rav Papa himself acknowledged was second ruling was incorrect?

(b) His admission was based on a statement by Shmuel, who said that ...

1. ... witnesses who come to testify on an immoral act that they saw - only need to have seen the adulterers in a compromising position (and it is not necessary for them to look further).
2. ... with regard to the above Halachah of Kil'ayim - that one has only contravened the La'av if one actually unites the animals manually (and that less than that is permitted).

(c) The Tana of the Beraisa (with reference to the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Behemtecha Lo Sarbi'a Kil'ayim", assuming the Torah had not added the word "Kil'ayim") states 'Hayisi Omer, Lo *Yochaz* Adam ha'Beheimah be'Sha'ah she'Oleh Alehah Zachar'. Rav Achdevu'i bar Ami extrapolates from there - that with regard to two different animals even holding them (by the horns) when they are intimate is forbidden (a Kashya on Shmuel).

(d) We answer this Kashya by interpreting 'Lo Yochaz Adam ha'Beheimah' to mean - that one may not unite them manually (and the Tana is merely using a more refined expression).

(a) Rav Yehudah permits manually breeding two animals of the same species. We might otherwise have thought that this is forbidden - because it leads to immoral thoughts, just like Chazal forbade watching two animals being intimate.

(b) The reason that it is permitted is - because in this case, one is too busy breeding the animals to be emotionally affected by what they are doing.

(c) Rav Achdevu'i bar Ami extrapolates from the Beraisa that we quoted earlier 'Hayisi Omer Lo Yochaz Adam ha'Beheimah be'Sha'ah she'Oleh Alehah Zachar, Talmud Lomar Kil'ayim' - that even when it is not Kil'ayim, one is only permitted to hold the animals, but not to actually unite them (a Kashya on Rav Yehudah).

(d) We answer, like we answered Rav Achdevu'i's previous Kashya - that the Tana is speaking in a refined manner, but he is really speaking about actually uniting the animals manually.

8)

(a) They asked Rav Ashi in the Beis-Hamedrash of Bei Rabana Resh Galusa whether one is permitted to lead three animals into a pen, two be'Miyno, and one, she'Eino Miyno - whether we rely on the likelihood of the two animals of the same species breeding, and ignoring the 'Eino Miyno' or whether the fact that there is a third animal cannot remove the Isur of leading two different species into a Pen. Note, that Rav Ashi appears to disagree with Shmuel and Rav Papa who, we saw earlier, permit leading even two different species of animals into a Pen.

(b) Despite the fact that the Halachah permits this, Rav Ashi ruled that one may not - because the Avadim in the house of the Resh Galusa tended to be lightheaded and would therefore sin easily.

(a) The Tana Kama permits a laborer to eat even if he works only with his hands or with his feet - or even if he only works with his shoulders.

(b) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah - requires him to work with both hands and feet before being allowed to eat.

(c) The Tana Kama learn from the Pasuk "Ki Savo be'Kerem Re'echa" - that irrespective of what his work entails, he is permitted to eat.

(d) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah learns that the laborer may only eat if he works with both hands and feet - from an animal (from which we derive some of the Halachos of a laborer too, and), which always works with its hands (forelegs) and feet (hindlegs).

(a) Rabah bar Rav Huna asked whether Bal Tachsom applies if one threshes with chickens or ducks - because on the one hand, they work with their entire bodies, but on the other, they don't have 'hands' (like an ox does).

(b) The She'eilah remains unresolved ('Teiku').

(c) Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah restricts laborers working in the wine-press to eating grapes - until they have gone the length and breadth of the wine-press, at which point they may also drink wine ...

(d) ... because at first, it seems that their job is confined to pressing the grapes, and it is only after they have gone the length and breadth of the wine-press that it ibecomes evident that they are working in wine as well. The prohibition will be explained immediately.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah - forbids a laborer who is picking ...

1. ... grapes to eat figs.
2. ... figs to eat grapes.

(b) He does however - permit a laborer to refrain from eating from inferior fruit and to wait until he arrives at the better quality fruit before eating.

(c) Strictly speaking, a laborer and an animal may eat only whilst they are working. Chazal however, made a special concession for ...

1. ... laborers - allowing them to eat as they walk from one row to another.
2. ... animals - allowing them to eat whilst they are being unloaded, seeing as ...

(d) ... it is to the employer's benefit (since the laborers will then eat less whilst they are working).

(a) We ask whether a laborer is permitted to eat from a superior-quality vine from which he is not actually picking - because on the one hand, he is eating from the same species as he working with, but on the other, it is not the same tree.

(b) We try to resolve our She'eilah from the fact that the Torah allows an animal to eat from Mechubar - which, bearing in mind that the fruit that is picked is generally placed in a wagon that is trailing behind the animal, will always be a different tree than the one being picked.

(c) Rav Shisha B'rei de'Rav Ada refutes this proof however - on the grounds that the Torah's concession might be confined to a tree with long branches, in which case, the animal could conceivably eat from the same tree that is being picked.

(d) We try to resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah, which forbids a laborer to eat from a vine to a fig-tree, implying that from one fig-tree to another is permitted. This proof too, Rav Shicha B'rei de'Rav Ada refutes, on the grounds - that the Tana might be speaking when the branches of the two trees became intertwined. Consequently, where there are two species, since he is only picking one of them, he is not permitted to eat from the other; whereas when both trees are of the same species, and there is no reason to separate the two branches, he will pick from both trees and is permitted therefore, to eat from them both.

(a) We try and resolve our She'eilah from the Tana of our Mishnah, who permits the laborer to refrain from eating until he reaches a row with superior-quality fruit - which proves that once he reaches the second row, he is forbidden to go back to eat from a vine in the previous row.

(b) We refute this proof however, by pointing to the fact that this is forbidden anyway because it involves a Bitul Melachah - and the original She'eilah was in a case where his wife and children accmpanied him as he was working and could bring him fruit without involving any Bitul Melachah on his part.

(c) We learned in our Mishnah that, a laborer is permitted to eat whilst walking from one row to another only because of Hashavas Aveidah (mi'de'Rabbanan). Based on the assumption that walking is considered working, we try and prove from there - that it is only because of 'Hashavas Aveidah' that he is permitted to eat, but not min ha'Torah, a proof that one may not eat from one tree to another.

(d) We counter this proof however - by changing our stance to 'walking is not considered working', and that is the reason that he may not eat min ha'Torah.

(a) The second Lashon tries to prove that a laborer is permitted to eat from one tree to another. To arrive at such a conclusion, we must assume walking is not considered an act (from which extraplolate that if he was actually working, he would be permitted to eat min ha'Torah).

(b) How do we counter this proof - by changing our stance to 'walking is considered working' (and still he is forbidden to eat from one tree to another) ... like we learned at first.

(c) We learned in our Mishnah that, due to Hashavas Aveidah, a donkey is permitted to eat. The problem with this is - that since unloading a donkey is normally done in one swift movement, how much can it eat in one swift moment?

(d) So we amend the Mishnah to read (not 'whilst it is being unloaded', but) 'until it is unloaded' (meaning between the picking and loading and the unloading, before it returns for the next batch).