Previous daf

1)

(a) Some opinions cite the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish with regard to our Mishnah 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rotav ... Mitztarfin Letamei Tum'as Ochlin'. Resh Lakish qualifies this ruling, restricting it to a bone which has a Din Shomer. According to Resh Lakish, this will not pertain to a strand of hair - because he considers it a Shomer al-Gabei Shomer.

(b) According to this Lashon, they are arguing with regard to Shomer and not Yad - because Yad does not combine to make up the Shi'ur Tum'ah of food, as we learned earlier.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan maintains - that a strand of hair is not considered a Shomer al-Gabei Shomer - because it pierces the skin right through to the Basar.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan queries Resh Lakish from the Beraisa 'Or she'Yesh Alav k'Zayis Basar ... ha'Noge'a ... be'Sa'arah she'Kenegdo Tamei', which he assumes is talking about a hair that is a Shomer. To which Resh Lakish's replies - that the Beraisa is talking about Yad, and not Shomer.

(b) And when Rebbi Yochanan asks Resh Lakish what purpose one strand of hair serves, he replies - 'bi'Melai she'Bein ha'Mela'in' (like Rebbi Ilai).

(a) When Rava defines 'Rotav' in our Mishnah as Shuman (Kasher fat), Abaye objects - on the grounds that Shuman is a food in its own right, and does not require Tziruf.

(b) So Rava amends his definition of 'Rotav' - to a viscous fluid that oozed from the Basar and congealed).

(c) Resh Lakish rules - that someone who eats vegetable juice (or fish-juice that is used as a condiment) together with vegetables on Yom Kipur is Chayav.

(d) Nevertheless, Rava requires the Rotav in our Mishnah to be congealed - because where the Torah requires Achilah, food and drink do not combine under any circumstances; but on Yom Kipur, where the Torah requires 'Inuy' (affliction), eating a vegetable together with its juice is sufficient to remove the affliction ...

(e) ... but not if someone eats and drinks a combined Shi'ur of a Koseves on Yom Kipur. Under such circumstances - food and drink combined will not remove the Inuy.

(a) When Rava defines 'Kifah' in our Mishnah as the sediment of meat, Abaye objects on the grounds - that sediment is a food in its own right, and does not require Tziruf.

(b) Rav Papa therefore defines it as - the spices with which the meat was cooked.

(a) The Mishnah in Menachos rules - that someone who eats congealed blood (see Tosfos DH 'Hikpah') or drinks melted Cheilev is Chayav.

(b) The problem with the latter ruling is - that the Torah uses a Lashon 'Achilah' regarding Cheilev, so why should he be Chayav for drinking it?

(c) We take for granted that one is Chayav for eating blood - because congealed blood is more Chashuv than melted blood (though it is unclear why we need a source to be Mechayev him, since, in Parshas Acharei-Mos, the Torah constantly uses a Lashon of 'Achilah' with regard to blood [see Tosfos DH 'Lerabos']).

(d) Resh Lakish learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the Isur of blood) "Ve'nichresah *ha'Nefesh* ha'Hi" - that one is Chayav for drinking blood (because the Lashon 'Nefesh' has connotations of satisfaction and pleasure).

(a) There is no problem with the Beraisa, which rules that someone who drinks melted Matzah has not fulfilled his obligation - because it is obvious that this is not considered "Lechem Oni".

(b) Resh Lakish learns that if someone eats melted Chametz he is Chayav (despite the Lashon 'Achilah' used by the Torah in this regard) - because here too, the Torah in Parshas Bo, uses the word "Nefesh".

(c) The third area of Halachah where, again based on "Nefesh" (in Parshas Acharei-Mos), Resh Lakish gives drinking the same Din as eating is - that of someone who eats Nivlas Of Tahor, who becomes Tamei together with the clothes he is wearing.

(d) The Beraisa restricts this to where the carcass was melted by fire, precluding there where it was melted by the sun - because then it becomes putrid (and loses its status of Sheretz).

(a) Even though we know that 'Shesiyah ka'Achilah' (drinking is like eating) by Cheilev, we cannot learn ...

1. ... Chametz from it - because unlike Cheilev, it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher (before Pesach).
2. ... Neveilah from it - because it is subject to Kareis, which Neveilah is not.

(b) And we cannot learn ...

1. ... Cheilev from Chametz - since 'Cheilev Hutar mi'Kelalo' (there is an occasion when the Isur Cheilev becomes permitted) which is not the case by Chametz.
2. ... Neveilah from Chametz - because it is not subject to Kareis like Chametz is.
3. ... Cheilev and Chametz from Neveilah - because Neveilah is Metamei, whereas they are not.

(c) Neither can we learn ...

1. ... Neveilah from Cheilev and Chametz - because it is not subject to Kareis ... .
2. ... Chametz from Neveilah and Cheilev - because it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher ... .
3. ... Cheilev from Chametz and Neveilah - because it is 'Hutar mi'Kelalo' ... .

(a) We suggest that 'Cheilev Hutar mi'Kelalo' means that ...

1. ... it is permitted to Hashem (by being placed on the Mizbe'ach). The same however, can be said about Neveilah - in the case of Olas ha'Of, which is killed by means of Melikah (which renders it Neveilah), and then placed on the Mizbe'ach.
2. ... Cheilev Chayah is permitted. We initially think that here as well, the same can be said about Neveilah - in the form of Chatas ha'Of, which is permitted to the Kohanim after Melikah.

(b) We conclude like the second suggestion however - in that the Kohanim eat as guests at Hashem's table, in which case the Cheilev is Mutar to Hashem Kevayachol (which it is anyway by all Korbanos), and not to the Kohanim. Cheilev Chayah is indeed unique in this matter.

(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "ha'Teme'im" (in connection with Sheratzim) that the various body juices of a Sheretz and the sediment at the bottom of the pot in which they have been cooked are included in the Isur of Sheratzim.

(b) We need an independent Pasuk by Sheratzim - to teach us that the Shi'ur Achilah is that of a lentil (ke'Adashah), and not a k'Zayis, which (due to the principle of 'Dayo Lavo min ha'Din Lih'yos ke'Nadun' [anything that is learned from 'Kal-va'Chomer adopts the same Din as what it is being learned from]) would have been the case had we learnt it from Cheilev, Chametz and Neveilah.

(c) We learn the Shi'ur Achilah of Sheratzim for which one receives Malkos - from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Ve'hivdaltem Bein ha'Beheimah ha'Tehorah ... ", which begins with Achilah and ends with Tum'ah, to teach us that the Shi'ur Achilah is the same as the Shi'ur Tum'ah (ke'Adashah).

(d) On the other hand, we need Pesukim by Cheilev, Chametz and Neveilah to teach us that one is Chayav for drinking them - because, had we tried to learn it from Sheratzim - we would have refuted it with the Pircha that Sheratzim are different, because they posses the strict Shi'ur of a ke'Adashah (as regards both Tum'ah and Isur).

10)

(a) The Beraisa states that the juice of Tevel, Chadash, Hekdesh, Shevi'is and Kil'ayim - has the same Din as the fruit.

(b) By the juice of ...

1. ... Chadash, the Tana means - the beer that is made from barley that was cut before the Omer has been brought.
2. ... Shevi'is, the Tana means - juice that is manufactured from Sh'mitah produce, that must be disposed of before the Z'man ha'Biy'ur.

(c) We refute the suggestion that we learn these from the above three, on the grounds that the latter constitute an Isur that comes automatically - precluding Hekdesh, which becomes Asur only through the owner's declaration.

(d) We therefore try to learn the above items from Bikurim (which also became Kadosh through the owner's declaration). We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "me'Reishis Kol *P'ri*" - that one must declare the fruit Bikurim in its original state (and not as juice).
2. ... "Tavi" - that it is order to press it and take the juice to Yerushalayim after it has been declared Bikurim.

(a) We refute the Limud from Bikurim however - on the grounds that Bikurim require K'riyah (reading the Parshah of "Arami Oved Ami") and Hanachah (placing beside the Mizbe'ach), which the above don't.

(b) So we suggest that we learn 'Shesiyah ka'Achilah' from Terumah - which in turn, we learn from Bikurim.

(c) We cannot learn the above from ...

1. ... Terumah - because Terumah is unique in that one is Chayav Misah (bi'Yedei Shamayim for eating it be'Meizid, and an extra fifth, be'Shogeg).
2. ... a 'Mah Matzinu' from Terumah and Bikurim either - for the same reason (since Bikurim possesses the same characteristics.

(d) So we ultimately learn 'Shesiyah ka'Achilah' by the above items from - Terumah (or Bikurim) plus Neveilah (or Sheratzim - see Tosfos DH 'Ela').

(a) In the Mishnah in Terumos, Rebbi Eliezer obligates someone who drinks date-honey, apple-cider or vinegar of winter grapes of Terumah to pay the principle plus a fifth. He can only be speaking be'Shogeg - because someone who eats Terumah be'Meizid does not pay the extra fifth?

(b) When we say that he holds 'Don Miynah u'Miynah', we mean - that when he learns one thing from another with a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' or a 'Binyan Av', he learns it in its entirety, together with the relevant details).

(c) Consequently, when he learns Terumah (which only applies to Dagan, Tirosh [wine] and Yitzhar [olive oil] min ha'Torah) from Bikurim (which applies to the seven fruits plus their liquids), we extend it to all kinds of fruit-juices

(d) The fact that the other fruit-juices are only mi'de'Rabbanan, means - that according to Rebbi Eliezer, 'Don Miynah u'Miynah' is La'av Davka, in this case (although that is undoubtedly what he holds in other cases).

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua holds - 'Don Miynah ve'Uki be'Asra', which means that we learn the basic Limud from the case in question, but not the details.

(b) Consequently - he learns the basic Din of liquids by Terumah from Bikurim, but he restricts it to the fruit that is subject to Terumah min ha'Torah (i.e. wine [or grape-juice] and olive oil).

(a) When the Tana there says 'Ein Mevi'in Bikurim Mashkeh Ela ha'Yotzei min ha'Zeisim u'min ha'Anavim', he must be talking about bringing fruit that has already been Bikurim and squeezing it afterwards - because otherwise, even wine would not be considered Bikurim either (as we learned earlier).

(b) The author of this Mishnah is - Rebbi Yehoshua, who, after learning Terumah from Bikurim (as we explained), then learns Bikurim from Terumah (with the same 'Hekesh' (based on the fact that the Torah in Naso, refers to Bikurim as Terumah), restricting the Din of liquids to wine and oil (like Terumah).

(c) And in the same vein - the author of the Mishnah there which confines Malkos for eating Orlah to someone who drinks olive oil or wine (or grape-juice), but not other beverages of Orlah - is also Rebbi Yehoshua, who learns Orlah from Bikurim with a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "P'ri" "Pri'.