Previous daf

1)

(a) In another Beraisa, the Tana Kama sentences someone who eats two Gid ha'Nashehs from two different animals, to two sets of Malkos. By 'two Gid ha'Nashehs from two different animals' he means - the two right Gidin, like Rebbi Yehudah, who restricts the Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh to the right Gid.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah himself however, disagrees with that ruling. He maintains - that one only receives one set of Malkus.

(c) The Beraisa cannot be speaking when he ate one Gid after the other with two warnings - because on what grounds would Rebbi Yehudah argue with that?

(d) Rav Yosef tries to prove from there - that seeing as we are talking about eating them in one go with one warning, the author must be Sumchus (as we have explained many times in the Sugya), a proof that Sumchus renders Chayav two Malkiyos even when they do not come from two bodies.

(a) We refute Rav Yosef's proof, by establishing the Beraisa even in a case where he ate the Gidin one after the other, and the reason that Rebbi Yehudah sentences him to only one set of Malkos is - because the Tana speaks when one of the Gidin is less than a k'Zayis.

(b) The Mishnah cannot be speaking when neither Gid comprises a 'k'Zayis - because that would entail combining the two half-k'Zeisim, which is not possible, since they must have been eaten outside the time limit of 'K'dei Achilas P'ras' apart (otherwise, it would not be considered 'one after the other').

(c) The Tana Kama, on the other hand - considers a Gid to be a Beryah (a complete entity), for which one is Chayav even if it is less than a 'k'Zayis'.

(a) Four times a year our Mishnah obligates someone who sells a Kasher animal to inform the purchaser that he already sold its mother or its child. The reason that he is Chayav then, and not during the rest of the year is - because on those days specifically, people tend to purchase animals in order to Shecht them for the big Se'udos that they inevitably serve the following day.

(b) One of those occasions is Erev Shemini Atzeres (i.e. Hosha'ana Rabah) - because Shemini Atzeres is an independent Yom-Tov, and people tend to reach high levels of Simchah on it (and we have a principle 'Ein Simchah Ela be'Basar').

(c) Two of the remaining three days are Erev Pesach and Erev Shavu'os, the third is - Erev Rosh Hashanah (see Tosfos DH 'u'che'Divrei' as to why Erev Succos is not included in the four days).

(d) The fifth day the Tana adds in the Galil, according to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili is - Erev Yom Kipur. According to the other Tana'im, they would eat fowl on that day (see Tosfos DH 'u'che'Divrei')?

(a) Rebbi Yehudah qualifies the above ruling - by confining it to where the seller sold the first animal earlier on that same day, but if he sold it before that, he is not obligated to inform the purchaser ...

(b) ... except for when he sells the mother to the Chasan after selling the child to the Kalah (or vice-versa), in which case, the obligation remains intact in any case.

(c) The other ruling that our Mishnah issues with regard to the above four occasions is - that the owner is obligated to Shecht the animal, even on behalf of one solitary purchaser who only bought a Dinar's-worth of meat.

(d) As a result - should the animal die before the owner has had a chance to Shecht it, the purchaser loses his money.

(a) Someone who buys an animal on any of the four specified dates - is not obligated to make inquiries as to whether the owner already sold the mother or the child of the animal earlier that day.

(b) The Tana deliberately refers to having sold the mother to the Chasan and the child to the Kalah (and not vice-versa) - based on the Minhag for the Chasan to prepare the bulk of the Chasunah Se'udah.

(c) Bearing in mind that money does not acquire (Metaltelin), the problem with the latter ruling in the Mishnah, (which renders the purchaser liable to lose his Dinar should the animal die) is - that since he did not make a Kinyan, what makes him liable to bear the loss?

(d) And we know that the Tana is speaking in a case where he did not make a Kinyan (in spite of Rav Huna Amar Rav, who tries to establish the Mishnah when he did indeed, perform Meshichah) - because if he did, he ought also to lose his money during the rest of the year.

(a) Consequently, Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak establishes the Mishnah where the owner appointed a third person (without consulting the customer) to acquire the Dinar's-worth of the animal on behalf of the purchaser - a Z'chus (merit) on any of the four specified days, but a Chov (a liability) during the rest of the year. And we have a principle 'Zachin le'Adam she'Lo be'Fanav, Aval Ein Chavin Ela be'Fanav' (One can acquire a merit on someone's behalf even without his knowledge, but can only create a liability for him with his consent).

(b) Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Mishnah when no Kinyan was made other than the money that the purchaser paid the seller, only - on the four special occasions, when it is a Mitzvah to eat meat, the Chachamim reinstated the Torah-law that money acquires, but not during the rest of the year.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan follows his own reasoning, that although min ha'Torah, paying for an article acquires it, the Rabbanan decreed that it should not. The ...

1. ... source for the Torah law is - the Pasuk in Bechukosai (in connection with Hekdesh) "Ve'nasan ha'Kesef Ve'kam Lo".
2. ... reason for the Rabbanan's decree is - because they were afraid that if Reuven gives Shimon money for wheat that is lying in a storehouse, let us say, and a fire subsequently breaks out before Shimon has had a chance to remove it, Shimon will not take the trouble to extinguish the fire, since its contents do not belong to him anyway. If, on the other hand, Reuven had made Meshichah, he would probably have moved the wheat to his own storehouse at the same time.

(a) Our Mishnah defines the day with regard to 'Oso v'Es Beno' as - the twenty-four hour period beginning with the night.

(b) ben Zoma learns it from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Yom Echad" "Yom Echad" - from the creation (in Parshas Bereishis), where the Torah writes "Va'yehi Erev, Va'yehi Voker".

(c) If not for the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', we might have thought that the night ought to follow the day - because 'Oso v'Es Beno' is written next to Kodshim, where the night follows the day ...

(d) ... as the Torah writes in Tzav (in connection with the Korban Todah) "be'Yom Korbano Ye'achel, Lo Yani'ach Mimenu ad Boker".

(e) What additional D'rashah does Rebbi also Darshens from "Yom Echad" of Oso v'Es Beno (implying a special occasion ['Yom Meyuchad']) - that there are some 'special days' on which the owner is obligated to announce that he already sold the animal's mother or child (as we learned in the previous Mishnah).

8)

(a) Although Kisuy ha'Dam has nothing to do with the land, our Mishnah informs us that it applies even in Chutz la'Aretz, and even not in the time of the Beis Hamikdash - because the Tana wants to add 'be'Chulin Aval Lo be'Mukdashin'.

(b) It applies - to (Kasher) Chayos and birds.

(c) The basic difference between this Mitzvah and that of Shilu'ach ha'Kein is - that whereas the latter pertains only to birds that one has not prepared, the former pertains both to those that one has prepared and to those that one has not.

(a) The Tana needs to inform us that the blood of a Coy requires Kisuy - because it is a Safek Beheimah, Safek Chayah (as we have already learned).

(b) And he adds that - one should not Shecht it on Yom-Tov (since perhaps it requires Kisuy, which is a Melachah), but that if one did, one must leave the blood uncovered (since one may not break Yom-Tov mi'Safek).

(a) Rebbi Zeira learns from the Pasuk "Ve'shachat es Damo Ve'chisahu *be'Afar*" - that the blood needs to be covered both underneath and on top.

(b) Based on Rebbi Zeira's D'rashah, the problem with Shechting a Korban Of, and covering its blood, assuming that one ...

1. ... negates the earth that one spreads underneath the bird is - that one is adding to the Mizbe'ach (bearing in mind that the Beis-Hamikdash was built according to the exact specifications that Hashem taught David, as recorded in Divrei Hayamim), to which one may not add, and from which one may not detract. 2. ... did not negate the earth that one spread underneath the bird - then it is a Chatzitzah (an interruption between the blood and the wall of the Mizbe'ach (and the Pasuk writes in Vayikra "ve'Nimtzah Damo al Kir ha'Mizbe'ach").

(c) Rebbi Yonasan ben Yosef rules in a Beraisa, that someone who Shechts ...

1. ... a Chayah and then a Beheimah (so that the blood of the latter covers the former) - he is Patur from Kisuy ha'Dam.
2. ... a Beheimah and then a Chayah (so that the blood of the Chayah is on top) - the latter requires Kisuy ha'Dam.

(d) But that is only because (based on the principle 'Kol ha'Ra'uy le'Bilah Ein Bilah Me'akeves Bo ... ') - it was initially possible to have spread earth underneath the blood of the Chayah. The blood of a Korban Of on the other hand, where this is not possible (as we just explained), is not subject to Kisuy ha'Dam at all.

(a) We suggest another way of covering the blood of a Korban Of, based on a Mishnah later in the Perek. The Tana there rules that blood that sticks to the Shechitah knife is subject to Kisuy ha'Dam, which one achieves - by scraping it off the knife and dropping it to the ground.

(b) By the same token, one can do that to the blood of a Chatas ha'Of. Consequently, when the Tana says 'Aval Lo be'Mukdashin' - he is referring (not to Kodshei Mizbe'ach, but) to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis ...

(c) ... which are not subject to Kisuy ha'Dam - because they are Asur be'Hana'ah (and therefore will not be eaten).