Previous daf

1) Rebbi Yanai learns from the Pasuk "Kaper le'Amcha Yisrael" - that the Eglah Arufah is Asur be'Hana'ah.

2)

(a) The birds of a Metzora are the 'Machshir ba'Chutz'. The Machshir bi'F'nim is - the Asham Metzora.

(b) The significance of 'Machshir', in this regard is - that they prepare the Metzora for reentering the Camp.

(c) The Eglah Arufah is the Mechaper ba'Chutz, the Mechaper bi'F'nim is - regular Korbanos.

(d) We learn the Isur Hana'ah by the birds of a Metzora by way of Machshir u'Mechaper ba'Chutz from Machshir u'Mechaper bi'F'nim. This means - that just as there is no difference between Machshir bi'F'nim and Mechaper bi'F'nim (the Asham Metzora and other Ashamos), neither is there a difference between the Machshir ba'Chutz and the Mechaper ba'Chutz (in which case the birds are Asur be'Hana'ah just like the Eglah Arufah).

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Shechutah is forbidden from the moment it is Shechted. Resh Lakish says - from the moment it is designated.

(b) According to both opinions - the Meshulachas is forbidden until it is sent away.

(c) Rebbi Yanai knew that the Eglah Arufah was forbidden already before it was killed, but could not remember exactly from when. His colleagues told him - that it became forbidden from when he took it down to the barren valley.

(d) In spite of the fact that Resh Lakish learns the birds of a Metzora from Eglah Arufah, he know that they are forbidden already from the moment they are designated, even though the Eglah is not - because whereas the latter have an interim stage from which to become forbidden, the former do not (so we learn from it that, like it, they are forbidden already before the time of Shechitah).

(a) From the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Kol Tzipor Tahor Tocheilu" - the Tana of the Beraisa includes the Meshulachas of a Metzora.
2. ... "ve'Zeh Asher Lo Sochlu Meihem" - he includes the Shechutah.

(b) According to Resh Lakish, we need the latter Pasuk to forbid the Shechutah after Shechitah, despite the fact that, according to him, it had already become forbidden earlier - to teach us that it does not become permitted with the Shechitah, like Kodshim do.

(c) Assuming that the Shechutah was found to be a T'reifah, the Tana of the Beraisa says ...

1. ... that the second bird - requires a new bird to make up the pair (obviating the necessity to look for a new pair).
2. ... that the Shechutah itself - is permitted.

(d) According to Rebbi Yochanan, when the Tana says 'T'reifah', he means that it became a T'reifah (a Neveilah) due to a bad Shechitah (and does not therefore become forbidden). Resh Lakish explains it to mean - that it was a T'reifah from already before (e.g. in the intestines), not like Rebbi Yochanan, because, since, according to him, it would have been forbidden already before the Shechitah, why would it then become permitted due to a bad Shechitah?

(a) According to Rebbi Ya'akov in another Beraisa, if they Shechted the bird without the accompanying hyssop, cedar wood or crimson thread, the bird nevertheless becomes forbidden. The basis of his Machlokes with Rebbi Shimon, who holds that it remains permitted is - that according to Rebbi Ya'akov, 'Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah, Sh'mah Shechitah' (a Shechitah that cannot lead to the fulfillment of its Mitzvah is nevertheless considered a good Shechitah), whereas Rebbi Shimon considers such a Shechitah invalid.

(b) We can extrapolate from the Beraisa - that, according to both Tana'im, a Kasher Shechitah renders the bird forbidden (like Rebbi Yochanan).

(c) Resh Lakish will answer - that this is a Machlokes Tana'im, and that he holds like the Tana in another Beraisa.

(d) He bases his opinion on the Beraisa that we learned earlier ('Machshir u'Mechaper ba'Chutz') - comparing the birds of the Metzora to the Eglah Arufah, which is forbidden still in its lifetime (like we learned above regarding the Isur Hana'ah). The author of this Beraisa is Rebbi Yishmael.

(a) Earlier, we cited the Beraisa "Kol Tzipor Tahor Tocheilu", 'Lerabos es Meshulachas'); "ve'Zeh Asher Lo Sochlu Meihem", 'Lerabos es ha'Shechutah'. We cannot reverse the D'rashos, forbidding the Meshulachas, and permitting the Shechutah - because, says Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, we never find an animal becoming forbidden in its lifetime.

(b) An animal that was Muktzah (designated for idolatry) and one that was Ne'evad (actually worshipped) are different - inasmuch as they are only forbidden to be sacrificed, but not to be eaten as Chulin.

(c) An animal that raped a person or that was raped by a man, are forbidden, provided there are two witnesses - because it is destined to be stoned (and we learned earlier that an animal that is stoned is Asur be'Hana'ah.

(d) What Rebbi Yochanan Amar Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai really said to explain why we not reverse the D'rashos, forbidding the Meshulachas, and permitting the Shechutah was (not that an animal never becomes forbidden during its lifetime, but) - that it is unusual.

7)

(a) de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learn that the Meshuleches is permitted from the Pasuk in Metzora "ve'Shilach es ha'Tzipor ha'Chayah al-P'nei ha'Sadeh" - 'like a field which is permitted'.

(b) Another Beraisa learns from the same Pasuk 'she'Lo Ya'amod be'Yafo ... , ve'Lo Ya'amod be'Geives ... , ve'she'Lo Ya'amod mi'Chutz la'Ir ... '. The significance of these three scenarios is that if he was standing in ...

1. ... Yaffo - he would be sending the bird out towards the sea.
2. ... Geives - he would be sending it into the desert.
3. ... mi'Chutz la'Ir - he would be sending it back into the town. The Pasuk 'El mi'Chutz la'Ir" - implies that he sends the bird out of town specifically from inside it.

(c) We reconcile Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael with this Tana - by pointing out that one of them learns from "Sadeh", and the other, from the extra 'Hey' ("ha'Sadeh").

(d) Rava does not require a source to teach us that the Meshulachas is permitted, but learns it from the S'vara - that the Torah would not instruct someone to send a bird away, causing others to sin (by possibly catching the forbidden bird and eating it) without even knowing that it is forbidden. The various Pesukim from which we learned this are merely 'Asmachtos' (hints) according to Rava.

(a) We learn from ...

1. ... the Pasuk "Kadosh Yihyeh Gadel Pera" - that the hair of a Nazir is Asur be'Hana'ah.
2. ... the fact that the Torah writes "Kadosh" and not "Kodesh" - implies that it is intrinsically holy and does not go out to Chulin.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, forbids deriving benefit from Petter Chamor. Rebbi Shimon permits it.

(c) Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah reconciles our Mishnah, which forbids deriving benefit from a Peter Chamor, with Rebbi Shimon - by establishing our Mishnah after the donkey's neck has been broken, which we learn from a Gezeirah-Shavah "Arifah" "Arifah" from Eglah Arufah, and to which even Rebbi Shimon concedes.

(a) The author of our Mishnah ...

1. ... is Rebbi Yishmael, who learn from fact that the Torah repeats the Pasuk "Lo Sevashel G'di ba'Chalev Imo" three times - three prohibitions, eating or deriving benefit from the cooked mixture, and cooking them together.
2. ... cannot be Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah, who learns from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Kodesh" "Kodesh" ("Ki Am *Kadosh* Atah ... " [which the Torah juxtaposes to "Lo Sevashel G'di ... "] "ve'Anshei *Kodesh* Tiheyun Li" [in connection with a T'reifah - an animal]) - that Basar be'Chalav, like a T'reifah, is Mutar be'Hana'ah.

(b) We learn that T'reifah is Mutar be'Hana'ah - from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "la'Kelev Tashlichun Oso".

(a) Kodshim that are Shechted outside the Azarah are Asur be'Hana'ah - from the fact that they were Asur when they were alive. Consequently, seeing as their blood was not sprinkled, there is no reason why their status should change.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan Mishum Rebbi Meir initially learns from there that Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah are Asur be'Hana'ah, too - because, since Hashem's animals that are Shechted in Yisrael's territory are Asur be'Hana'ah, the same will apply to Yisrael's animals that are Shechted in Hashem's territory.

(c) From the Pasuk in "ve'El Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o Lehakriv Korban la'Hashem ... ve'Nichras" - we learn that it is only for Shechting a Korban in the wrong domain that one receives Ka'res, but not for Chulin that were Shechted in the Azarah.

(d) That being the case, we now have a Pircha that refutes Rebbi Yochanan's 'Mah Matzinu' learning Chulin inside the Azarah from Kodshim outside - because the latter are more stringent than the former, inasmuch as they carry a Chiyuv Ka'res.

(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Ki Yirchak Mimcha ha'Makom ... ve'Zavachta" - the prohibition of Shechting Chulin in the Azarah.

(b) We might include in the prohibition ...

1. ... a blemished animal - because it is part of the prohibited species.
2. ... a Chayah (such as a deer) - because the Torah compares Pesulei ha'Mukdashin (a Beheimah) to a Chayah with regard to Shechitah, in which case, we might extend the comparison, reversing it to learn a Chayah from a Beheimah with re. to forbidding its Shechitah in the Azarah.

(c) There is no such reason however, to include birds in the prohibition?

(d) Consequently, we find a triple source that includes all three (despite the fact that they are all unfit to be brought on the Mizbe'ach) - namely, three Pesukim ("u'Shecha*to*", "ve'Shachat *Oso*" and "ve'Shachat *Oso*"), all in connection with the Korban Shelamim, and all of which imply that the Shelamim is Shechted in the Azarah, but not any other (to preclude blemished animals, Chayos and birds, respectively).

(a) The Pasuk "Ki Yirchak Mimcha ha'Makom ... ve'Zavachta ve'Achalta" teaches us - that not only is it forbidden to Shecht Chulin in the Azarah, but that, if one does, they may not be eaten.

(b) We extend the Isur Achilah to blemished animals, wild animals and birds - from the same source as we did the initial Isur (first from a S'vara and then from the three Pesukim.

(c) We finally learn from the Pasuk (that we quoted earlier) "la'Kelev Tashlichun *Oso*" - that one may throw T'reifah to the dogs (i.e. it is Mutar be'Hana'ah), but not Chulin that were Shechted in the Azarah.

(d) We know to preclude specifically Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah from this Pasuk, because the previous part of the Pasuk "u'Basar ba'Sadeh T'reifah Lo Socheilu" is talking about - an unborn animal which stuck out its leg prior to its birth. The Torah prihibits eating that leg, because it left its natural boundary, and "la'Kelev Tashlichun Oso" permits deriving benefit from it. And "Oso" comes to precude Chulin she'Nishchatah ba'Azarah (which likewise left its permitted boundary) from that concession.