prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) Seeing as in the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'Chol Dam Lo Sochlu", the Torah inserts ...
1. ... "la'Of" (whose feathers are not subject to Kil'ayim), how do we know that the blood of a sheep and a goat (whose wool is), is included in the Isur?
2. ... "la'Beheimah" (which is not subject to the Isur of 'Eim al ha'Banim'), how do we know that the blood of a Tahor bird (which is), is included?
(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'). What did we think before becoming aware that the last phrase is a 'K'lal'?
(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. What is the difference between them?
(d) And we establish the author of the Beraisa as Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael. What does Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael say?
(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. Why can it not come to include the blood of a Chayah?
(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). On what grounds do we refute the suggestion that he considers it a Safek?
(c) And what will we then learn from the Pasuk there ...
1. ... "Kol Cheilev"?
2. ... "Kol Neveilah"?
(d) And what do we learn from the Pasuk in Vayishlach "asher al Kaf ha'Yarech" (in connection with Gid ha'Nasheh) regarding toa Coy?
(e) How do we learn it from there?
(a) We ask from where we know that a Coy is subject to Tum'ah and Shechitah. Which Tum'ah are we referring to?
(b) What do we answer?
(a) We query the Beraisa, which ascribes Tum'ah Chamurah to Adam, but not Tum'ah Kalah, from a Mishnah in Uktzin, which discusses someone who cuts off a piece of Basar from a human being. What does the Mishnah say about that?
(b) How does Resh Lakish establish the Mishnah, to explain why it requires Machshavah, why the cutting off alone is not considered a Machshavah?
(c) The Mishnah in Taharos rules that a food remains Tamei as long as it is fit for canine consumption. What Kashya does this pose on Resh Lakish?
(d) To answer the Kashya, what distinction do we draw between something that is already a food and something that is not?
(a) What do we now ask on the earlier Beraisa from Machshavah? What sort of Tum'ah normally requires Machshavah?
(b) What do we answer? Why can we not compare the current Beraisa to that of 'Dam Mehalchei Sh'tayim'?
(c) We query this however, from a Mishnah in Iduyos, where Beis Shamai declare Dam Nivlas Beheimah, Tahor. What do Beis Hillel say?
(d) What problem does this create with the earlier Beraisa?
(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. Why is that?
(b) Rav asked Rebbi Chiya why, seeing as they are Tamei Neveilus anyway, they require Machshavah. What did he reply?
(c) We ask why the Tana then exempts it from Hechsher, based on Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael. What does Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael learn from the Pasuk in Shemini (in connection with Hechsher Lekabel Tum'ah) "al Kol Zera Zaru'a asher Yizarei'a"?
(d) How do we counter this? What is the difference between Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael's D'rashah and our case of Pachos mi'k'Zayis?
(a) Why does the earlier Beraisa not 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?
(b) According to Rav Chananya, the Mishnah in Uktzin (which requires Machshavah by Nivlas Beheimah Temei'ah) speaks even by a k'Zayis. How does he establish the case?
(c) Seeing as in its current state, the k'Zayis of Neveilah is not Metamei be'Maga, why does it then not require Hechsher?
(d) Then why, by the same token, does the earlier Beraisa not ascribe Tum'ah Kalah to a k'Zayis of Meis under the same circumstances?
(a) The Beraisa excluded the blood of fish and of locusts from the Isur of Dam, because it is 'all Heter'. Why can this not mean that it is not subject to the Isur of ...
1. ... Cheilev?
2. ... Gid ha'Nasheh?
(b) Then what does the Tana mean?
(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]). On what grounds do we refute the suggestion that the Tana is referring literally to the Isur of Kil'ayim?
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav rules that one receives Malkos for 'eating' the blood of Sheratzim. What Shi'ur must one eat in order to be Chayav?
(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 Evarim harei Eilu be'Lo Sa'aseh'. What does the Tana then say about Dam Sheratzim u'Remasim and Dam Mehalchei Shetayim?
(c) Based on the Beraisa itself, on what grounds do we refute the suggestion that Dam Sheratzim is not subject to Kareis but is subject to a La'av?
(d) What other problem do we have with this suggestion, based on the Beraisa that we discussed earlier?
(a) So how does Rebbi Zeira explain Rav's ruling? Why does it depend on the wording of the warning?
(a) Rav forbids the blood of locusts that has been collected in a receptacle. Why is that?
(b) On what grounds do we reject the suggestion that the Beraisa which permits fish-blood, speaks when it has not been gathered in a receptacle? What does the same Beraisa say about human blood?
(c) This Kashya is based on another Beraisa, which discusses someone who has a bleeding tooth. What does the Tana there say?
(d) On what basis does the Tana require the area of bread containing the blood to be removed?
(e) So we see that the Tana only includes human blood that has been collected in a receptacle in the real Isur. How will we then explain the Beraisa which nevertheless permits the blood of locusts?
(a) What lenient ruling does Rav Sheishes issue with regard to human blood?
(b) How does he reconcile this ruling with the same Beraisa which we just cited to query Rav Yehudah Amar Rav (which rules 'Asur ve'Ein Chayav alav')?
(c) Which Beraisa does he cite in support of this answer?