Previous daf

1)

(a) Ula lists eight categories of Tereifah. His source for this is - Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai.

(b) He lists Nekuvah, Pesukah, Netulah, Chasurah, Keru'ah, Derusah, Nefulah and Shevurah - precluding Lekusah de'Kulya (infected kidneys) of Rachish bar Papa, with which he disagrees.

(c) We will later consider infected lungs, Tereifah - because an infection eventually turns into a hole.

(d) We cannot however, incorporate infected kidneys in 'Nekuvah' too - because a hole in the kidneys does not render the animal Tereifah, either.

(a) 'Netulah' means - entirely removed, whereas 'Chasurah' means - part of it missing.

(b) We reckon ...

1. ... G'ludah, Shaf mi'Duchteih (dislocated) and Nidaldelu Simanim in the category of - Netulah.
2. ... Nechtechah Raglehah - as Chasurah.
3. ... Akiras Tzela and Chavisas Gulgoles - as Shevurah.

(c) Chiya bar Rabah incorporates eight Tereifos in Nekuvah. He does not count ...

1. ... Nekuvas ha'Marah (like our Mishnah does) - because it is the individual opinion of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah.
2. ... Nekuvas ha'Techol, like Rav Avira Amar Rava - because he disagrees with him.

(d) He accounts for the nine Nekuvos listed in our Mishnah (besides Nekuvas ha'Marah) - by considering Nekuvas ha'Messes and Nekuvas Beis-ha'Kosos as one (as we explained earlier).

(a) Rebbi Yitzchak b'Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules that Nekuvas ha'Marah is -Tereifah (like Rebbi Yitzchak b'Rav Yosef).

(b) The Rabbanan query Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah from the Pasuk "Yishpoch la'Aretz Mererasi" - which is the result of a puncture in the gall-bladder, to which Iyov referred as a wound which he would survive, and not to it being a death-stroke.

(c) According to Rebbi Yitzchak b'Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah replied - that one cannot bring a proof from miracles, and it is clear from same Pasuk "Yefalach Kilyosai ve'Lo Yachmol" (as even the Rabbanan will agree that an animal with a split kidney is Tereifah).

(d) The source of his answer lies in the Pasuk there (where Hashem caused the Satan terrible anguish by instructing him to) - 'only guard his soul', from we see that the Satan dealt Iyov blows that under normal circumstances, he would not have been able to survive).

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if the entire liver is removed and nothing remains, the animal is Tereifah. Bearing in mind a contradiction between this Mishnah and the following one (which we will discuss later), Rebbi Yitzchak b'Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules - that for the animal not to be a Tereifah, at least a k'Zayis must remain.

(b) We can extrapolate from our Mishnah however - that even if only a Mashehu remains, the animal is Kasher.

(c) Based on Rabah bar bar Chanah, who citing Rebbi Yochanan, rules 'Halachah ki'S'tam Mishnah', we therefore query Yitzchak b'Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Yochanan's previous ruling. And we answer - that Rebbi Yochanan's opinion is subject to a Machlokes Amora'im, as we see here.

(d) In spite of the fact that both Mishnahs involved are S'tam Mishnahs, Rabah bar bar Chanah will not concede to Rebbi Yitzchak b'Rav Yosef in this case - because, whenever there is a contradiction of this nature, Rebbi Yochanan remains non-commital, unless he has an indication that the Halachah is like one of them.

(a) Rebbi Yitzchak b'Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules that ...

1. ... a punctured gall-bladder which is blocked by the liver is - Kasher.
2. ... the stomach of a bird which is punctured but the inner sac is not is - Kasher, too.

(b) They ask what the Halachah will be in the reverse case, where the sac is punctutred but not the stomach. And they resolve it with a statement by Rav Nachman, who said - that if either one of them was punctured but not the other, or even if both of them was punctured, but not at the same spot, the bird is Kasher.

(c) Rabah rules that, in a case where only one of the two skins of the Veshet is punctured - the animal is Kasher.

(d) He find add that the outer one is red and the inner one, white - to teach us that if they are reversed, the animal is Tereifah.

(a) Mar Zutra quoting Rav Papa declares the animal Kasher, even if both skins of the Veshet are punctured, as long as they are not punctured at the same spot. However, he says, a bird whose stomach and inner sac are both punctured but at different spots - is Tereifah.

(b) Rav Ashi objects to Mar Zutra's distinction, because, he argues, the opposite is true - it is the Veshet (which contracts and expands as one eats, and together with the Kaneh as one talks), sometmes causing the two holes to arrive at the same spot, allows the food to exit the Veshet; whereas this cannot occur with the food in the bird's stomach, which remains still.

(c) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Yosef - assured him that this was how they actually quoted Mar Zutra in the name of Rav Papa.

(d) Rabah rules that if a membrane grows on the Veshet as a result of a wound, blocking the wound and preventing the food from escaping - the animal is nevertheless Tereifah, because the membrane is only temporary.

7)

(a) We already cited Rabah's ruling that one cannot examine a Veshet from the outside - because the outer skin is red, against which a drop of blood is indiscernible.

(b) The ramifications of Rabah's ruling concern - a Safek Derusah (as we will discuss later in the Perek).

(c) When Abaye found Rabah examining the outer skin of the Veshet in a case of Safek Derusah, he exclaimed - that Rabah himself was the one to prohibit examining the outer skin of the Veshet.

(a) Rabah's reaction to that was - to promptly cut the Veshet and to inspect the inner skin , where he discovered two specks of blood (where the poison had penetrated the skin.

(b) Initially, he examined it from the outside - to test Abaye.

(c) Assuming it was a bird, Rabah probably examined it by first examining and Shechting the Kaneh (as we explained in the previous Perek). If it was an animal however - he would have had to Shecht both Simanim, examining the Kaneh (either before or after the Shechitah, and the Veshet after Shechting it and removing the outer skin (in order to examine the inner one (as we learned on the previous Amud).

(d) We dismissed that possibility there - because we were afraid that he may have Shechted the Veshet in the location of a hole (which cannot then be examined), whereas here, where it is not a hole that we afraid of but poison, it is possible to examine the inner Veshet, even after the Shechitah, since the red around the poisoned area is wider than the cut of the Shechitah.

(a) Ula rules that an animal in whose throat a thorn lodged - is Kasher (and may be eaten after it has been Shechted).

(b) The Chidush is that we are not afraid 'Shema Hivri' - meaning that the thorn might have punctured the Veshet right through (rendering the animal a Tereifah) and then healed; or simply that it punctured right through without leaving a drop of blood on the inside, and which cannot be examined on the outside (as Rabah just taught us).

(c) We ask on what grounds Ula will differentiate between this case and Safek Derusah (if Safek Derusah is Tereifah, why is this case Kasher)? We are referring to a case - where a lion was seen in the herd, and we suspect that it may have clawed one of the animals.

(d) And we answer that - Ula permits Safek Derusah is, like he permits 'Yashav Kotz'.

(a) The difference between Ula's case and that of someone who ...

1. ... eats one of two pieces of fat, one Cheilev and the other, Shuman, for which he is Chayav to bring an Asham Taluy - is that in the latter, we know for sure that there was a piece of Isur ('Ischazek Isura'), which is not so in Ula's case (see Tosfos DH 'Sha'ani Hasam').
2. ... Shechts with a knife, which turns out to have a defect on it - is the fact that the knife with its defect is like a Chezkas Isur.

(b) We also query him from a case of Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid (which is Tamei), which we counter - by asking that by the same token one could support him from the case of Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, which is Tahor. (c) We therefore reconcile Ula with the rulings by Safek Tum'ah - by classifying both Safek bi'Reshus ha'Yachid and Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim as a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, instructing us to learn them from Sotah (who is Tamei in a Reshus ha'Yachid, but Tahor, in a Reshus ha'Rabim). And we cannot learn from a Halachah.

(a) A certain Talmid-Chacham learned before Rav Kahana that Ula's previous ruling is confined to where the thorn is found loose in the throat, but that if it is lodged there - Ula will agree that the animal is Tereifah

(b) Rav Kahana instructed the people present - not to listen to the Talmid-Chacham, because, to the contrary, Ula speaks when the thorn is lodged in the animal's throat. If it was loose, then it would goes without saying that the animal is Kasher.

(c) He disagreed with the Talmid-Chacham - on the grounds that all the animals that graze in the meadow and in the forests eat thorns, and that, according to the Talmid-Chacham, they should all be Tereifah.

(a) According to Rav, a small hole in the Turbatz ha'Veshet, like a hole in the Veshet, renders the animal a Tereifah. The 'Turbatz ha'Veshet' is - the top of the Veshet, where it is joined to the jaw

(b) Shmuel maintains - that the Shi'ur Tereifos of the Turbatz ha'Veshet is the majority.

(c) The basis of their Machlokes is whether the Turbatz ha'Veshet is a location of Shechitah (Rav) or not (Shmuel).

(d) According to Shmuel, Hagramah - does not pertain to the Veshet, only to the Kaneh.

(a) According to Mari bar Mar Ukva Amar Shmuel, wherever one makes a cut and it stretches is considered the Turbatz ha'Veshet. One gauges the Veshet itself - by wherever the sides of the cut remain as they were.

(b) Rav Papi, quoting Rav Bibi bar Abaye defines the latter as Turbatz ha'Veshet, and he defines the Veshet as - whatever contracts after it has been Shechted.

(c) Rebbi Yonah Amar Rebbi Zeira (see also Mesores ha'Shas) is the most radical of all. He defines the Turbatz ha'Veshet as - the point where the animal swallows (that is right next to the head ...

(d) ... less than a barley-length away from that point, says Rav Ivya, but more than a wheat-length.

(a) Rava placed the Chumros of Rav and the Chumros of Shmuel on an ox belonging to the sons of Rav Ukva - because it had been Shechted, beginning from the Turbatz ha'Veshet but ending with the Veshet.

(b) The Chumros of ...

1. ... Rav - constitute rendering it Tereifah with a Mashehu.
2. ... Shmuel - constitute not considering the Turbatz ha'Veshet a location that is subject to Shechitah.

(c) When the case came before Rebbi Aba, he ruled that the animal was Kasher (because according to Rav it was subject to Shechitah and according to Shmuel a hole less that Rubo didn't render it Tereifah.

(d) He instructed the sons of Rav Ukva to tell Rava, the son of Rav Yosef bar Chama - that he was obligated to pay for the ox.

(a) Rebbi Aba ordered Rava to pay - because he had applied two conflicting Chumros to render the ox forbidden when really it was permitted.

(b) And he ordered him to pay, based on the principle - 'Ta'ah bi'Devar Mishnah, Chozer' (someone who errs in a specified Halachah, must retract).

(c) What makes this a D'var Mishnah is - a Beraisa which explicitly forbids adopting the Chumros of two Tana'im even in different cases (as we shall see shortly), certainly when they both apply to one and the same case.

(d) Rava would have simply retracted, had the ox still been available. However - now that he had fed it to the dogs, he had to pay.