1)

(a)The Chachamim explain that Nivlas Of Tahor (Tum'ah Chamurah) does not require Machshavah because Einah Yoredes le'Kach, even though Ochlin (Tum'ah Kalah) generally do. Rava ascribes this to the fact that Tum'ah Chamurah Einah Osah ke'Yotzei bahen, whereas Tum'ah Kalah does. What does he mean by that?

(b)What problem does Abaye have with this?

(c)So we quote Rav Sheishes, who ascribes the distinction to the additional Chumra that Tum'ah Chamurah has over Tum'ah Kalah. Which Chumra?

(d)But we query Rav Sheishes too, from the Mishnah in Taharos (that we quoted earlier) 'Sheloshah-Asar Devarim Ne'emru be'Nivlas Of Tahor'. We already learned two of those things 'Tzerichah Machshavah ve'Einah Tzerichah Hechsher'. Which third specification do we cite here?

(e)From which of these Chumros are we now querying Rav Sheishes?

1)

(a)The Chachamim explain that Nivlas Of Tahor (Tum'ah Chamurah) does not require Machshavah because Einah Yoredes le'Kach, even though Ochlin (Tum'ah Kalah) generally do. Rava ascribes this to the fact that Tum'ah Chamurah Einah Osah ke'Yotzei bahen, whereas Tum'ah Kalah does - the former does not render food Tamei, whereas the latter does.

(b)The problem Abaye has with this is - that the Chumra that Tum'ah Kalah has over Tum'ah Chamurah makes it less reason to require Machshavah than it, not more!

(c)So we quote Rav Sheishes, who ascribes the distinction to the fact that - Tum'ah Chamurah does not require a Hechsher, whereas Tum'ah Kalah does.

(d)But we query Rav Sheishes from the Mishnah in Taharos (that we quoted earlier) 'Sheloshah-Asar Devarim Ne'emru be'Nivlas Of Tahor'. We already learned two of those specifications ('Tzerichah Machshavah ve'Einah Tzerichah Hechsher'), and we now cite a third Chumra - Einah Metam'ah Ela be'Veis ha'Beli'ah ...

(e)... though we are now querying Rav Sheishes from - 've'Einah Tzerichah Hechsher'.

2)

(a)How does Rav Sheishes qualify Einah Tzerichah Hechsher in an attempt to answer the Kashya?

(b)On what grounds do we refute Rav Sheishes' answer on principle (based on Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael)?

(c)What does Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael learn from the Pasuk in Shemini (which is the source of Hechsher) "al Kol Zera Zeru'a asher Yizare'a"?

(d)So how does Rava (or Rav Papa) finally explain why Tum'ah Chamurah does not require Hechsher, whilst Tum'ah Kalah (that comes from Nivlas Of Tahor) does?

2)

(a)In an attempt to answer the Kashya - Rav Sheishes confines Einah Tzerichah Hechsher to Hechsher Sheretz which it needs (but not to Hechsher Mayim), even though Tum'ah Chamurah does not).

(b)We refute Rav Sheishes' answer however, based on Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael - who precludes Tum'ah Kalah (of Nivlas Of Tahor) from any Hechsher at all (as we will now see).

(c)Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael learns from the Pasuk in Shemini "al Kol Zera Zeru'a asher Yizare'a" (which is the source for Hechsher) that - anything that is subject to Tum'ah Chamurah (bearing in mind that seeds are not) does not require Hechsher - any Hechsher, whether it is contact with a Sheretz or contact with water (only Machshavah).

(d)So Rava (or Rav Papa) finally explains that Tum'ah Chamurah does not require Hechsher, whilst Tum'ah Kalah (that comes from Nivlas Of Tahor) does - because the latter has a precedent by all other types of Tum'as Ochlin which require Machshavah (which Tum'ah Chamurah never does).

3)

(a)What does Rava say about Machshavah by Mechubar with regard to Ma'aser, even according to Rebbi Yochanan?

(b)And he bases this on a Mishnah in Ma'asros, which discusses the pennyroyal (Si'ah), hyssop and savory (Kurnis) plants that are growing in a courtyard. Under what condition are they subject to Ma'asros?

(c)Why does Rava take for granted that they must have been planted as animal fodder and not for human consumption?

(d)What does he therefore prove from there?

3)

(a)Rava rules that even Rebbi Yochanan will agree that Machsheves Mechubar by Ma'aser - is considered a Machshavah.

(b)And he bases this on a Mishnah in Ma'asros, which rules that the pennyroyal (Si'ah), hyssop and savory (Kurnis) plants that are growing in a courtyard, are subject to Ma'asros - provided they are guarded.

(c)Rava takes for granted that they must have been planted as animal fodder and not for human consumption - because otherwise, the Beraisa's ruling would be obvious.

(d)He also understands that - when the Tana says that they are guarded, he means for human consumption (even though the herbs were originally planted as animal fodder), which means that the Machshavah took place whilst they were still growing (a proof for his initial statement).

4)

(a)Rav Ashi refutes Rava's proof, by establishing the Beraisa where they grew by themselves and 'S'taman le'Adam Ka'i'. How does he then interpret 'Im Hayu Nishmarin'?

(b)Rav Ashi queries Rava from our Mishnah 'Kol she'Chayavin be'Ma'asros Mitam'in Tum'as Ochlin'. What does he try to prove from there? Why should 'Ulshin she'Zar'an li'Beheimah ... ' be Chayav the one but not the other (according to Rava's interpretation)?

(c)How does Rava ...

1. ... refute the Kashya? How does he explain Kol she'Chayavin be'Ma'asros?

2. ... try to prove his point from the Seifa (the next Mishnah), which states 'Kol she'Chayav be'Reishis ha'Gez, Chayav be'Matanos' (Zero'a, Lechayayim ve'Keivah). If not for the answer that he just gave ('Kol Miyn ... '), which case would be Chayav Reishis ha'Gez but not Matanos?

(d)Ravina refutes Rava's proof however, by establishing the Mishnah like Rebbi Shimon. What does Rebbi Shimon say about a T'reifah, with regard to Reishis ha'Gez?

4)

(a)Rav Ashi refutes Rava's proof, by establishing the Beraisa where they grew by themselves and 'S'taman le'Adam Ka'i', and he interprets 'Im Hayu Nishmarin' to mean - that the courtyard automatically protected them (and they were not therefore Hefker).

(b)Rav Ashi then queries Rava from our Mishnah 'Kol she'Chayavin be'Ma'asros Mitam'in Tum'as Ochlin'. He tries to prove from there that - Rava is wrong, because if, as Rava maintains, Machsheves Chibur was considered a Machshavah regarding Ma'aser but not regarding Tum'as Ochlin, it would clash with our Mishnah.

(c)Rava ...

1. ... refutes the Kashya however, by explaining 'Kol she'Chayavin be'Ma'asros' to mean - 'Kol Miyn ... ' (every species [not every case] that is Chayav Ma'asros ... ').

2. ... tries to prove his point from the Seifa (the next Mishnah), which states 'Kol she'Chayav be'Reishis ha'Gez, Chayav be'Matanos' (Zero'a, Lechayayim ve'Keivah), because if not for the answer that he just gave ('Kol Miyn ... '), a T'reifah would be Chayav Reishis ha'Gez but not Matanos (thereby clashing with the Mishnah).

(d)Ravina refutes Rava's proof however, by establishing the Mishnah like Rebbi Shimon, who holds that - a T'reifah is Patur from Reishis ha'Gez too.

5)

(a)Rav Shimi bar Ashi cites a Beraisa which discusses someone who declares his vineyard Hefker and then, the next morning, he harvests the grapes. What does the Tana there say with regard to ...

1. ... Peret, Ol'los, Shikchah and Pe'ah?

2. ... Ma'asros?

(b)What has Rav Shimi bar Ashi now proved from there?

5)

(a)Rav Shimi bar Ashi cites a Beraisa which discusses someone who declares his vineyard Hefker and then, the next morning, he harvests the grapes. The Tana there rules that he is ...

1. ... Chayav Peret, Ol'los, Shikchah and Pe'ah, but ...

2. ... Patur from Ma'asros.

(b)Rav Shimi bar Ashi has now proved from there that - when our Mishnah says 'Kol she'Chayav be'Pe'ah, Chayav be'Ma'asros', he must be referring to the species (like Rava) and not to the case.

51b----------------------------------------51b

6)

(a)What does the Mishnah in Pe'ah say, regarding the opinion of Rebbi Akiva, in a case where somebody sows mint or mustard in two or three locations in a field?

(b)What do we extrapolate from the fact that mint is Chayav ...

1. ... Pe'ah?

2. ... Ma'asros?

(c)What do we now prove from there? What role does mint play in food?

6)

(a)The Mishnah in Pe'ah informs us that Rebbi Akiva concedes in a case where somebody sows mint or mustard in two or three locations in a field - he is Chayav to leave Pe'ah from each one independently.

(b)We extrapolate from the fact that mint is Chayav ...

1. ... Pe'ah that - it is also Chayav Ma'asros.

2. ... Ma'asros that - it must then be subject to Tum'as Ochlin ...

(c)... a proof that an ingredient that one adds to food as a sweetener (and not as a food) which we currently think mint is, is subject to Tum'as Ochlin.

7)

(a)We query this however, from a Mishnah in Uktzin, where Rebbi Akiva permits purchasing spices with the money of Ma'aser Sheini on the one hand, but who does not consider them subject to Tum'as Ochlin, on the other. How does Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri query this?

(b)What does Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri himself conclude?

(c)To resolve the discrepancy between the Mishnah in Pe'ah and the Mishnah in Uktzin, Rav Chisda establishes the first ruling by 'Sheves ha'Asuyah le'Kamach'. What does that mean?

(d)Rav Chisda's answer implies that S'tam Sheves is meant to add taste to the food. What did Rav Kahana comment when Rav Ashi repeated to him what Rav Chisda said?

7)

(a)We query this however, from a Mishnah in Uktzin, where Rebbi Akiva permits purchasing spices, including pennyroyal and saffron, with the money of Ma'aser Sheini on the one hand, but does not consider them subject to Tum'as Ochlin, on the other. Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri queries this Mah-Nafshach, if it can be acquired with the money of Ma'aser, then it should also be subject to Tum'as Ochlin, and if it is not Metamei Tum'as Ochlin, one should not be able to acquire it with the money of Ma'aser?

(b)Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri therefore concludes - like his second statement, that it is subject to neither the one nor the other.

(c)To resolve the discrepancy between the Mishnah in Pe'ah and the Mishnah in Uktzin, Rav Chisda establishes the first ruling by Sheves ha'Asuyah le'Kamach - mint that has been chopped up and added to Kutach (a condiment made of bread, milk and salt), giving it the Din of a food.

(d)Rav Chisda's answer implies that S'tam Sheves is meant to make the food sweet. When Rav Ashi repeated to Rav Kahana what Rav Chisda said however - he pointed out that in fact, S'tam mint is le'Kamach, and does not require Machshavah.

8)

(a)Rav Kahana based his statement on another Mishnah in Uktzin, which exempts mint from Terumah from the moment is has added taste to the pot. From what else does the Tana exempt it?

(b)What can we extrapolate from there?

(c)What does Rav Kahana now prove from there?

8)

(a)Rav Kahana based his statement on another Mishnah in Uktzin, which exempts mint from Terumah - and from the Din of Tum'as Ochlin, from the moment it has added taste to the pot ...

(b)... from which we can extrapolate that - before it has added taste to the pot, it is subject to Terumah and Tum'as Ochlin ...

(c).... a proof, concludes Rav Kahana - that S'tam Sheves is le'Kamach (otherwise it would be Patur, as we learned in the other Mishnah in Uktzin).

9)

(a)We have already discussed our Mishnah that 'Whatever is Chayav Reishis ha'Gez is also Chayav Matanos ... ', but not the reverse. What is the latter ruling referring to?

(b)The Tana draws the same corollary between Shevi'is and Biy'ur. What is Biy'ur?

(c)What does he say about them?

(d)What, besides declaring them Hefker and not doing business with them, does 'subject to Shevi'is' incorporate?

9)

(a)We have already discussed our Mishnah that whatever is Chayav Reishis ha'Gez is also Chayav Matanos ... ', but not the reverse. The latter ruling is referring to - a cow, which does not produce wool.

(b)The Tana draws the same corollary between Shevi'is and Biy'ur - (the Mitzvah to clear out any remaining Sh'mitah-produce from the house, at a certain date following the Sh'mitah year, which we will determine shortly).

(c)He says that - whatever is subject to Biy'ur, is subject to Sh'mitah, but not necessarily vice-versa.

(d)Subject to Shevi'is incorporates declaring them Hefker, not doing business with them - and not using them as a poultice or as Apiktozen (a gourmet's practice to take an emetic before a meal to induce vomiting one's food).

10)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses what turns out to be Luf Shoteh and a Dandenah (mint). What is a Luf Shoteh?

(b)If the leaves of a Luf Shoteh are subject both to Shevi'is and to Biy'ur, why is the main part of it subject to Shevi'is but not to Biy'ur?

(c)Based on the Pasuk in B'har "ve'li'Vehemt'cha ve'la'Chayah asher be'Artz'cha tih'yeh Chol Tevu'asah Le'echol", which principle governs things that are subject to Biy'ur as well?

(d)Then why does the Tana confine the Reisha to the leaves of a Luf Shoteh?

10)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses what turns out to be Luf Shoteh and a Dandenah (mint). A Luf Shoteh is - a species of onion (see Tiferes Yisrael Shevi'is 7:1).

(b)The leaves of a Luf Shoteh are subject both to Shevi'is and to Biy'ur, whereas the main part of it is subject to Shevi'is but not to Biy'ur - because it does not stop growing in the field.

(c)Based on the Pasuk in B'har "ve'li'Vehemt'cha ve'la'Chayah asher be'Artz'cha tih'yeh Chol Tevu'asah Le'echol", the principle that governs things that are subject to Biy'ur as well is that - the moment a particular species no longer remains in the field for the wild animals, one must clear out whatever remains in the house, to ensure that nothing of that species remains in the house for the animals either.

(d)The Tana confines the Reisha to the leaves of a Luf Shoteh - only in order to demonstrate the difference between the leaves of the Luf Shoteh and main part of it.

11)

(a)Following the same format as the previous Mishnahs, what does our Mishnah say about ...

1. ... scales and fins (regarding fish)?

2. ... horns and split hoofs (regarding animals)?

(b)Seeing as we rely on a fish's scales to declare it Kasher, why do we initially think that the Torah finds it necessary to mention fins?

(c)Now that the Torah does mention both, what do we learn from the Pasuk in Shmuel (in connection with Golyas) "ve'Siryon Kaskasim hu Lavush"?

(d)In that case, back comes the question why the Torah needs to insert "S'napir". Why indeed does it insert it?

11)

(a)Following the same format as the previous Mishnahs, our Mishnah rules that ...

1. ... any fish that has scales, has fins (and is therefore Kasher), but not necessarily vice-versa.

2. ... any animal that has horns, has split hoofs and (provided it chews its cud), is therefore Kasher, but not necessarily vice-versa.

(b)Even though we rely on a fish's scales to declare it Kasher, we initially think that the Torah finds it necessary to mention fins - because had the Torah not mentioned both, we would have thought that "Kaskeses" means fins and not scales.

(c)Now that the Torah does mention fins, we learn from the Pasuk in Shmuel (in connection with Golyas) "ve'Siryon Kaskasim hu Lavush" that - "Kaskasin means scales.

(d)In that case, back comes the question why the Torah needs to insert "S'napir" - to which we answer 'Lehagdil Torah ve'Ya'dir', meaning that the Torah presents us with two proofs that "Kaskasin" are scales, in order to enlarge the scope of the Torah (and to glorify it).

12)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that whatever requires a B'rachah afterwards, requires a B'rachah before, but not necessarily vice-versa. What is the problem with establishing the Seifa by ...

1. ... vegetables? What did Rebbi Yitzchak used to do?

2. ... water? What did Rav Papa used to do?

3. ... Mitzvos? What did the b'nei Ma'arva used to do after removing their Tefilin?

(b)So how do we finally establish the Seifa of the Mishnah? What is the Tana referring to?

12)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that whatever requires a B'rachah afterwards, requires a B'rachah before, but not necessarily vice-versa. The problem with establishing the Seifa by ...

1. ... vegetables is that - Rebbi Yitzchak also used to recite 'Borei Nefashos Rabos ... ' after eating vegetables.

2. ... water is that - Rav Papa used to recite a B'rachah even after drinking water.

3. ... Mitzvos is that - the b'nei Ma'arva used to recite - " ... asher Kidshanu be'Mitzvosav ve'Tzivanu Lishmor Chukav' when removing their Tefilin.

(b)We finally establish the Mishnah with reference to - reciting a B'rachah over something that has a pleasant smell, which everyone agrees requires a B'rachah beforehand but not afterwards.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF