ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) Even though in the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'Chol Dam Lo Sochlu", the Torah inserts ...
1. ... "la'Of" (whose feathers are not subject to Kil'ayim), we know that the blood of a sheep and a goat (whose wool is), is included in the Isur - from the Torah's insertion of "ve'la'Beheimah".
2. ... "va'la'Beheimah" (which is not subject to the Isur of'Eim al ha'Banim'), we nevertheless know that the blood of a Tahor bird (which is), is included - from the Torah's insertion of "la'Of".
(b) We learn the above from a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal' "Kol Dam" (K'lal) "la'Of ve'la'Beheimah" (P'rat) "Nefesh asher Tochal Kol Dam" ('K'lal'). Before becoming aware that the last phrase is a 'K'lal' - we thought that the Torah only forbids the blood of a Beheimah and of an Of (but not of a Chayah).
(c) We query the 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal' on the grounds that the first 'K'lal' is different than the last one - inasmuch as the first one refers only to a La'av, whereas the second one refers to a Chiyuv Kareis.
(d) And we establish the author of the Beraisa as Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael - who learns a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal' even under such circumstances.
(a) The Beraisa learned from the 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal' whatever is similar to the P'rat in the three points that it listed. We ask what it comes to include. It cannot come to include the blood of a Chayah - because unless it is specifically precluded, 'Chayah' is generally included in "Beheimah".
(b) Rav Ada bar Avin answers that the Tana comes to include the blood of a Coy, which he considers an independent creature (neither a Beheimah nor a Chayah). We refute the suggestion that he considers it a Safek - from the fact that if it was, it would not require a Pasuk to include it, seeing as 'Mah Nafshach' (whichever one it would be) it would be Asur.
(c) And we learn from the Pasuk there ...
1. ... "Kol Cheilev" - that a Coy is subject to the Isur of Cheilev.
2. ... "Kol Neveilah" - that he is subject to the Isur of Neveilah, too.
(d) And we learn from the Pasuk in Vayishlach "asher al Kaf ha'Yarech" that the Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh too, applies to a Coy. (e) ... since " ... asher al Kaf ha'Yarech", implies that any animal with a round 'spoon of the thigh' is subject to the Isur (precluding only birds that don't).
(a) We ask from where we know that a Coy is subject to Tum'ah and Shechitah. The Tum'ah we are referring to is - that of Tum'as Neveilah.
(b) And we answer - that having compared a Coy to other animals in every other respect, it stands to reason that we will compare it to them in these two regards as well.
(a) We query the Beraisa, which ascribes Tum'ah Chamurah to Adam but not Tum'ah Kalah, from a Mishnah in Uktzin, which rules that if someone cuts off a piece of Basar from a human being - it requires Machshavah and Hechsher for it become subject to Tum'as Ochlin (which is a Tum'ah Kalah).
(b) To explain why it requires Machshavah, why the cutting off alone is not considered a Machshavah, Resh Lakish establishes the Mishnah - where he cuts it off to feed a dog (which is not in itself, considered a Machshavah to give it the status of a food).
(c) The Mishnah in Taharos rules that a food remains Tamei as long as it is fit for canine consumption - from which it appears that what is fit for a dog to eat does have the status of a food (a Kashya on Resh Lakish).
(d) To answer the Kashya, we draw a distinction between something that is already a food - that loses its status only when a dog can no longer eat it (the Mishnah in Taharos), and something that is not - which only becomes a food once it is fit for human consumption (Resh Lakish).
(a) In any event, it is only a Tum'ah Kalah that normally requires Machshavah - a Kashya on the earlier Beraisa, which declares a human being not subject to Tum'ah Kalah.
(b) And we answer - that we cannot compare the current Beraisa - which is speaking about a live person, to the Beraisa of 'Dam Mehalchei Sh'tayim' - which refers to a dead one, who is only subject to Tum'ah Chamurah, as stated by the Tana.
(c) We query this however, from a Mishnah in Iduyos, where Beis Shamai declare Dam Nivlas Beheimah Tahor - whereas Beis Hillel declare it Tamei ...
(d) ... a problem with the earlier Beraisa - which ascribes Tum'ah Kalah to a dead animal, seeing as we just established the Beraisa, (which distinguishes between them) by a dead person.
(a) And we answer with a Mishnah in Uktzin, which requires Machshavah for the Neveilah of a Beheimah Temei'ah everywhere, and that of an Of Tahor in the villages - because nobody tended to eat the former at all, whereas the latter were not generally eaten in the villages - because they were poor and could not afford fowl, and that is what the Beraisa under discussion is talking about.
(b) Rav asked Rebbi why, seeing as they are Tamei Tum'as Neveilus anyway, they require Machshavah, to which he replied - that the Mishnah is speaking about less than a k'Zayis, which is not subject to Tum'as Neveilah, but which is fit to combine with less than a k'Beitzah of food, complementing the Shi'ur of Tum'as Ochlin.
(c) We ask why the Tana then exempts it from Hechsher, based on Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, who learns from the Pasuk "al Kol Zera Zaru'a asher Yizare'a" - that whatever, like seeds, will never adopt a stringent form of Tum'ah, requires Hechsher.
(d) We counter this by pointing out - that Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael's D'rashah refers to other foods which intrinsically do not stand to adopt a stringent form of Tum'ah, but not to less than a k'Zayis of Neveilah, which, if it were to be added to a k'Zayis of Neveilah, would automatically adopt Tum'as Neveilus.
(a) The earlier Beraisa cannot ascribe Tum'ah Kalah to a small piece of Meis which is less than a k'Zayis, in the same way as we just did to a small piece of Neveilah - because nobody eats a piece of Meis. Consequently, even if someone has such a Machshavah, we apply the principle 'Batlah Da'ato Eitzel Kol Adam' (his mind is Bateil to that of everybody else, and it does not become a food).
(b) According to Rav Chananya, the Mishnah in Uktzin (which requires Machshavah by Nivlas Beheimah Temei'ah) speaks even by a k'Zayis, and the Mishnah speaks - where he covered it with less than a k'Beitzah of dough, which on the one hand, prevents the piece of Neveilah from being Metamei be'Maga, and on the other, now combines with it to make up the Shi'ur that is subject to Tum'as Ochlin.
(c) Despite the fact that, in its current state, the k'Zayis of Neveilah is not Metamei be'Maga, it does not require Hechsher - because it is still fit to be Metamei Tum'as Masa (render Tamei be carrying).
(d) By the same token however, the earlier Beraisa cannot ascribe Tum'ah Kalah to a k'Zayis of Meis under the same circumstances - because even now, it is Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah be'Ohel (even without touching), based on the principle 'Tum'ah Retzutzah Boka'as ve'Olah' (since there is no space of a Tefach between the piece of Meis and the dough, the Tum'ah goes up to the sky).
(a) The Beraisa excluded the blood of fish and of locusts from the Isur of Dam, because it is 'all Heter'. This cannot mean that it is not subject to the Isur of ...
1. ... Cheilev - because the Cheilev of a Chayah is permitted too, yet its blood is prohibited.
2. ... Gid ha'Nasheh - because the Gid ha'Nasheh of a bird is permitted, yet its blood is prohibited.
(b) What the Tana therefore means is - that it is permitted to eat it without Shechitah.
(c) The Beraisa also refers to 'Of she'Ein bo Kil'ayim' (which we explained on the previous Amud [based on Abaye's conclusion here]). We refute the suggestion that the Tana is referring literally to the Isur of Kil'ayim - due to the Mishnah in Bava Kama, which specifically incorporates Chayah ve'Of in the Isur of Kil'ayim.
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav rules that one receives Malkos for 'eating' the blood of Sheratzim. The Shi'ur one must one eat in order to be Chayav is - a k'Zayis.
(b) We query this (the fact that he is Chayav Malkos on the blood of Sheratzim) from a Beraisa which rules 'Dam ha'Techol, Dam ha'Leiv ... Dam Eivarim harei Eilu be'Lo Sa'aseh' - adding 'Dam Sheratzim u'Remasim and Dam Mehalchei Shetayim Asur, ve'Ein Chayavin alav'.
(c) Based on the Beraisa itself, we refute the suggestion that Dam Sheratzim is not subject to Kareis but is subject to a La'av - on the grounds that the Tana should then have included it in the first list.
(d) The other problem with this suggestion is based on the Beraisa that we discussed earlier - which precludes Dam Sheratzim from the La'av of Dam because they are not subject to Tum'ah Chamurah.
(a) Rebbi Zeira therefore explains Rav's ruling - with regard to the Isur of Sheratzim, not that of Dam. Consequently, he will only receive Malkos, if he is warned not to eat Sheratzim (but not if he is warned not to drink its blood).
(a) Rav forbids the blood of locusts that has been collected in a receptacle - because people will come to confuse it with the blood of animals.
(b) We reject the suggestion that the Beraisa which permits fish-blood, speaks when it has not been gathered in a receptacle - because the same Beraisa forbids human blood (which is not firmly Asur under those circumstances, as we shall see).
(c) This Kashya is based on another Beraisa, which discusses someone who has a bleeding tooth. The Tana there rules - that blood that is found on the piece of bread that he is eating, should be cut away, but the blood that is still in his mouth, is permitted even if he sucks it from his teeth.
(d) The Tana requires the area of bread containing the blood to be removed - only due to the Mitzvah of 'P'rosh' (to separate), but not because it is really Asur (because then the blood in his mouth would be prohibited too).
(e) So we see that the Tana only includes human blood that has been collected in a receptacle in the real Isur. Consequently, the Beraisa which nevertheless permits the blood of locusts must be speaking - where there are scales in the blood, so that everyone knows that it is fish blood.
(a) Rav Sheishes precludes human blood - even from the Mitzvah of 'P'rosh'.
(b) He reconciles this ruling with the same Beraisa from which we just cited to query Rav Yehudah Amar Rav (which rules 'Asur ve'Ein Chayav alav') - by establishing it by blood that has separated from the person's mouth ...
(c) ... as we just learned in the other Beraisa which draws the same distinction.