Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Zeira cited Rebbi Aba bar Mamal, who established the Beraisa ('ha'Chotech k'Beitzah Basar me'Eiver min ha'Chai ... Chishev Alav ve'Achar-Kach Chatcho, Tamei') like Rebbi Meir, who holds Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim, Tamei' - in the Mishnah in Beheimah Hamakshah, where he is Metamei the Ubar via the leg that it stuck out before the mother was Shechted (see Hagahos Radal).

(b) The problem Rebbi Asi has with that, as he himself asked Rebbi Aba bar Mamal is - that Rebbi Meir only said it in a case where the animal was already Huchshar Lekabel Tum'ah (via the Shechitah), but not in the current Beraisa, which is speaking about Eiver min ha'Chai, which has not yet been Muchshar.

(c) Rabah bar Rav Chanan thought that the Beraisa cannot be speaking when the Basar was in fact Huchshar - because it was already Tamei Tum'ah Chamurah (since Eiver min ha'Chai is Metamei Adam and Keilim), and even Sofo Litamei Tum'ah Chamurah does not require Hechsher, how much more so if it is already Tamei Tum'ah Chamurah. See also Tosfos ha'Rosh, to understand the opinion of Rebbi Aba bar Mamal.

(d) To which Rava replied that it could, because 'ke'she'Shimesh, Ma'aseh Eitz Shimesh', meaning - that at the time that the k'Beitzah was part of the Eiver min ha'Chai, it was not yet a food; and when, after the Machshavah, it became a food, it is as if it then became a new object, which requires a Hechsher Lekabel Tum'ah.

(e) A Nivlas Of Tahor however, is Metamei the person who eats it be'Toras Ochel, even without a Hechsher, in spite of the fact that it is already Tamei Tum'ah Chamurah - because it is Metamei him whilst he is actually eating it (exclusively) in which case the S'vara that it is no longer a food does not apply.

(a) The Sugya in Pesachim rules that a lump of yeast that one designated as a chair - is no longer considered a food, and is permitted to retain on Pesach.

(b) It is subject to - Tum'as Moshav ha'Zav.

(c) Abaye assumes that ...

1. ... this Tum'ah must be de'Rabbanan and not d'Oraysa - because it would then contravene the principle that (like seeds, that are mentioned in the Torah) food does stand to be Mitamei Tum'ah Chamurah.
2. ... the Tum'as Ohel that pertains to food that one offers to Avodah-Zarah must be de'Rabbanan, and not d'Oraysa (and the Pasuk of "Va'yochlu Zivchei Meisim" is only an Asmachta) - again for that reason, since Tikroves Avodah-Zarah (like a Meis) is Metamei be'Ohel (a Tum'ah Chamurah).

(d) We reject Abaye's ...

1. ... first assumption - because when it is Mitamei Tum'ah Chamurah it is no longer a food.
2. ... second assumption - because, due to the fact that it is Asur be'Hana'ah, it is no longer considered a food either.

(a) Cheilev of a Neveilah is Tamei Tum'as Neveilah - in its capacity as a Shomer of the kidneys, as we learned earlier in the Perek.

(b) Based on this Halachah, Rav Papa commented to Rava that when the Mishnah in Uktzin renders the Cheilev Neveilah of villagers Tamei Tum'as Ochlin with Machshavah - it must be speaking mi'de'Rabbanan, since otherwise, it could not later be Mitamei Tum'ah Chamurah.

(c) Rava countered however - that here too, it may well be that it is Tamei d'Oraysa, because the Cheilev became Tamei in its capacity as a Shomer of an Ochel, before it even became an Ochel via Machshavah.

(a) The Chachamim rule that if the ceiling of a house comprises sheaves of corn - they lose their Din of Ochel, and becomes part of the house, to adopt Tum'as Tzara'as, should the house become afflicted.

(b) Rav Masna commented on that - that the Tum'ah must be de'Rabbanan, like the previous Amora'im argued.

(c) And we reject Rav Masna's assumption like in the previous cases - because once the sheaves become part of the ceiling, it is no longer a food.

(d) To answer all the above Kashyos, we use the expression - 'ke'she'Shimesh, Ma'aseh Eitz Shimesh', as we explained earlier, because it was Tamei Tum'ah Chamurah in a secondary capacity (before it became a food or afterwards), as if it was a piece of wood.

5)

(a) Rebbi Shimon in the Seifa (after the Tana has discussed 'Meisah ha'Beheimah') rules that the loose Eiver or Basar remain Tahor. The problem with this is - that mi'Mah Nafshach, depending upon whether 'Misah Osah Nipul' or not, it should either be Eiver min ha'Chai or Eiver min ha'Neveilah.

(b) If Rebbi Shimon does not refer to the Seifa, then we initially ascribe his statement - to the Reisha (where the animal is still alive).

(c) Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan bases Rebbi Shimon's reasoning on the Pasuk "mi'Kol ha'Ochel Asher Ye'achel" - which implies that only food that a Yisrael is permitted to feed to someone else (which he cannot if it is Eiver min ha'Chai) is considered food (and is subject to Tum'as Ochlin), but not Eiver or Basar min ha'Chai.

(a) We reject the suggestion that Rebbi Yochanan refers to the Reisha however, because then we could equate Rebbi Shimon with Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah in Uktzin that we quoted earlier, where he declares Tahor the branch of a fig-tree that broke loose, but that is still connected by the bark. According to the Chachamim - it depends upon whether the branch will revive or not, as we already explained.

(b) And the reason we ascribe to Rebbi Yehudah is - because as long as the branch is joined to the tree, it is considered joined to the ground (irrespective of whether it will re-grow or not).

(c) So we ascribe Rebbi Yochanan's statement to the Metzi'asa, where Rebbi Shimon maintains that the blood of the Shechitah is not Machshir the animal. Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan now learns from "mi'Kol ha'Ochel Asher Ye'achel" - that only food that can be fed to someone is food and therefore subject to Hechsher Tum'ah, but not Eiver or Basar min ha'Chai.

(d) And we reject this assumption too, on the grounds that Rebbi Shimon's reason there is either because of ...

1. ... Rabah, who gives as Rebbi Shimon's reason - that an animal cannot become a Yad for one of its Eivarim.
2. ... Rebbi Yochanan (and Abaye), who explains - that it is because when picking up the limb, the animal breaks off.

8)

(a) Our Mishnah rules that a loose Eiver or loose Basar of a live human-being is Tahor, as is the Basar even after he dies. The reason for ...

1. ... the first ruling is - because the Torah writes in Chukas "ve'Chi Yamus" (precluding any part of a live person from becoming Tamei).
2. ... the second ruling is - because 'Misah Osah Nipul'.

(b) Rebbi Meir declares the loose Eiver of a dead man - Tamei because of Eiver min ha'Chai, but not because of Eiver min ha'Meis.

(c) Rebbi Shimon - declares it Tahor.

(d) The problem with Rebbi Shimon's ruling is - that 'mi'Mah-Nafshach', depending upon whether 'Misah Osah' Nipul or not, it ought to be Tamei either because of Eiver min ha'Chai or Eiver min ha'Meis.

(a) We conclude that Rebbi is not referring specifically to the case in our Mishnah - but to the Din of a regular Eiver min ha'Meis, which by inference, Rebbi Meir holds is Tamei, and with which he disagrees ...

(b) ... unless it contains a k'Zayis Basar, in which case he will concede that it is Metamei.

(a) In fact, Rebbi Shimon follows the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer, who said in the Beraisa 'Shama'ti she'Eiver min ha'Chai Metamei' - implying that Eiver min ha'Meis is not.

(b) To counter Rebbi Eliezer's statement, Rebbi Yehoshua Darshened - that if Eiver min ha'Chai is Tamei (even though a live animal is not), then how much more so Eiver min ha'Meis (where a Meis is Tamei).

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua backed his ruling with a statement from Megilas Ta'anis, which rules that one may not eulogize a dead person on Pesach Sheini - implying that on Pesach Rishon one may.

(b) Such an inference however, is not possible - because if eulogizing a Meis is forbidden on a minor Yom-Tov, it is obvious that it is forbidden on a major one.

(c) This proves - that when a 'Kal-va'Chomer' is blatant (as it is in the case of Eiver min ha'Meis), one must accept the Chidush as it stands, and ignore the inference (in which cased, Rebbi Eliezer ought not to have made the inference that he did).

(a) According to Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah, the difference whether a loose limb or loose Basar are considered Eiver min ha'Chai or Eiver min ha'Meis - is that if Basar or a bone the size of a barley separates from the former, it is not Metamei (like Rebbi Yehoshua in the Mishnah that we are about to discuss), whereas if they separate from the latter, they are.

(b) In the Mishnah in Iduyos ...

1. ... Rebbi Eliezer declares a k'Zayis Basar that comes from Eiver min ha'Chai, Tamei. Rebbi Nechunyah ben Hakanah and Rebbi Yehoshua - maintain that it is Tahor.
2. ... Rebbi Nechunyah ben Hakanah declares a bone the size of a barley that comes from Eiver min ha'Chai, Tamei. Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua - maintain that it is Tahor.

(c) Based on the Mishnah in Iduyos, we might also establish the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah - with regard to Basar or Etzem ki'Se'orah (a bone the size of a barley), one of which will be Tamei according to Rebbi Meir (either the Basar like Rebbi Eliezer or the Atzamos like Rebbi Nechunyah ben Hakanah), and both Tahor, according to Rebbi Shimon (like Rebbi Yehoshua).

(d) Rebbi Shimon will concede however - that the Eiver itself is Tamei.

1. ... Eliezer is more stringent by Basar from Eiver min ha'Chai than by Atzamos - because Tum'as Basar pertains to Neveilos and Sheratzim (whilst Tum'as Atzamos does not).
2. ... Nechunyah ben Hakanah is more stringent by Atzamos from Eiver min ha'Chai than by Basar - because Tum'as Atzamos pertains to an Eiver min ha'Chai (incorporating a complete bone), but not Tum'as Basar.
3. ... Yehoshua is more lenient by both than by Aztamos and Basar min ha'Meis - because a Meis is subject to far more items than a Chai, as we learned earlier in the Perek.

Next daf