1)

(a)What does our Tana learn from the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "Kol Mikn'cha Tizachar (Klal) Petter Shor va'Seh u'Feter Chamor (P'rat)"?

(b)How do the Rabbanan counter Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili's argument that ...

1. ... the word "u'Feter" interrupts the sequence (since it could have relied on the first "Petter") preventing "Chamor" from being part of the K'lal?

2. ... the Torah should then have omitted both the 'Vav' and "Petter"?

1)

2)

(a)We ask whether, if a cow gives birth to a firstborn that resembles a donkey, one or two Simanim of a cow will suffice to render it subject to the Bechorah. Assuming that it will not, what will it require to do so?

(b)For which two reasons might it not, even though in the case of a sheep that gave birth to a firstborn goat, it does?

(c)Assuming that in the previous case, it is indeed subject to the Bechorah, why might a donkey that gives birth to a horse, which has only one or two Simanim of a donkey, not?

(d)And assuming that in the latter case, it is also subject to the Bechorah, why might a cow that gives birth to a horse not be subject to the Bechorah?

(e)Why, in spite of all the differences, might one or two Simanim suffice even in the last case? What principle do we now hold that we did not hold initially?

2)

(a)We ask whether, if a cow gives birth to a firstborn that resembles a donkey, one or two Simanim of a cow will suffice to render it subject to the Bechorah. Assuming that it will not - it will require the majority of Simanim of its mother in order to be Chayav Bechorah.

(b)The reason that it might not, even though in the case of a sheep that gave birth to a firstborn goat it does is - because a. the baby resembles a Beheimah Temei'ah, and b. it is a species which is only Kadosh Kedushas Damim (as opposed to the latter, where the baby resembles a species of Beheimah Tehorah and one which is Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf, like its mother).

(c)Assuming that in the previous case, it is subject to the Bechorah, a donkey that gives birth to a horse, which has only one or two Simanim of a donkey, might not - because, unlike the former, the latter baby resembles a species that is not subject to the Bechorah at all.

(d)And assuming that in the latter case it is also subject to the Bechorah, a cow that gives birth to a horse might not be subject to the Bechorah - because unlike the former, where the baby resembles its mother in that it has the form a Beheimah Temei'ah, the latter baby does not.

(e)In spite of all the differences, one or two Simanim might suffice even in the last case - because Simanim are totally reliable (whereas up to now, we maintained that they are not).

3)

(a)Which of the three above She'eilos can we prove from the Beraisa which renders a B'chor, a Beheimah Tehorah that gave birth to a Beheimah Temei'ah which had one or two Simanim of the mother?

(b)Another Beraisa exempts a cow that gave birth to a donkey and a donkey that gave birth to a horse, from the Bechorah, but adds that if the baby has one or two Simanim of the mother, it is Chayav. What is the problem with saying that the latter ruling pertains exclusively to the first case and not the second?

(c)What good reason do we have to have nevertheless thought that a donkey that gives birth to a horse should be subject to the Bechorah more than a cow that gives birth to a donkey? Which two Simanim automatically render them similar?

3)

(a)The only one of the three above She'eilos that we can prove from the Beraisa which renders a B'chor, a Beheimah Tehorah that gave birth to a Beheimah Temei'ah which had one or two Simanim of the mother is - the first one (a cow that gave birth to a firstborn that resembles a donkey, since we have no proof that Beheimah Temei'ah means anything more than that).

(b)Another Beraisa exempts a cow that gave birth to a donkey and a donkey that gave birth to a horse from the Bechorah, but adds that if the baby has one or two Simanim of the mother, it is Chayav. The problem with saying that the latter ruling pertains exclusively to the first case and not the second is that - there then appears to be no reason to mention it, because if a cow that gave birth to a donkey (where both are subject to the Bechorah) is Patur, then a donkey that gave birth to a horse (where the baby is not subject to the Bechorah) certainly ought to be.

(c)A good reason to have nevertheless thought that a donkey that gives birth to a horse should be subject to the Bechorah more than a cow that gives birth to a donkey is - the fact that both animals neither possess horns nor do they have hooves that are completely cloven.

4)

(a)What problem do we have with the fact, that after teaching us that one is permitted to eat a donkey that is born to a cow, but not vice-versa, the Mishnah adds 'she'ha'Yotzei min ha'Tamei, Tamei ... '?

(b)Why does the Tana indeed do so?

(c)What does the Beraisa learn from ...

1. ... the double mention of the prefix "mi" (in the Pasuk in Shemini "Ach es Zeh Lo Tochlu mi'Ma'alei ha'Geirah u'mi'Mafrisei ha'Parsah")?

2. ... the word "Hu" (in the Pasuk there "Gamal, Tamei Hu")?

(d)What does Rebbi Shimon learn from the fact that the Torah repeats the Isur of Gamal in Re'ei?

4)

(a)The problem with the fact that, after teaching us that one is permitted to eat a donkey that is born to a cow, but not vice-versa, the Mishnah adds 'she'ha'Yotzei min ha'Tamei, Tamei ... ' is that - seeing as it does not come to teach us anything new (in which case the Tana would have introduced it with 'Zeh ha'K'lal'), why does the Tana mention it?

(b)And we answer that - he does so as a reminder, that we should remember to go after the mother and not after the animal itself.

(c)The Beraisa learns from ...

1. ... the double mention of the prefix "mi" (in the Pasuk in Shemini "Ach es Zeh Lo Tochlu mi'Ma'alei ha'Geirah u'mi'Mafrisei ha'Parsah") that - sometimes an animal is forbidden even though it chews its cud and has cloven hooves (when its mother is a Beheimah Temei'ah).

2. ... the word "Hu" (in the Pasuk there "Gamal, Tamei Hu") that - a camel is only Tamei in a regular case (where its mother is a camel too), but not where its mother is a Beheimah Tehorah.

(d)Rebbi Shimon learns from the fact that the Torah repeats the Isur of Gamal in Re'ei that - a camel whose mother is a Beheimah Tehorah is forbidden as well as one whose mother is a camel

6b----------------------------------------6b

5)

(a)What do the Rabbanan learn from the two "Gamals"? What does the Torah come to forbid besides the actual camel?

(b)On what grounds do they disagree with Rebbi Shimon, who learns the prohibition of milk from "es ha'Gamal"?

(c)The Rabbanan hold like Rebbi Shimon ha'Amsuni, who did not know whom to include when he arrived at the Pasuk in Re'ei "es Hash-m Elokecha Tiyra". What did he reply, when his Talmidim asked him what would happen to all the 'es's' that he had Darshened up to that point?

(d)How did Rebbi Akiva Darshen "es Hash-m Elokecha Tiyra"?

5)

(a)The Rabbanan learn from the two "Gamals" - that - not only is the actual camel forbidden, but so is its milk.

(b)They disagree with Rebbi Shimon, who learns the prohibition of milk from "es ha'Gamal" - because they do not Darshen all the "es's in the Torah.

(c)The Rabbanan hold like Rebbi Shimon ha'Amsuni, who did not know whom to include when he arrived at the Pasuk in Re'ei "es Hash-m Elokecha Tiyra". When his Talmidim asked him what would happen to all the 'es's' that he had Darshened up to that point, he replied that (that was not his business, because) - just as he would receive reward for all the D'rashos that he made, so too, would he now receive reward for having retracted from them.

(d)Rebbi Akiva however, Darshened "es Hash-m Elokecha Tiyra" - to include Talmidei-Chachamim, whom one is obligated to respect no less than Hash-m Himself.

6)

(a)What do we learn from "ha" (in the Pasuk in Shemini "Eileh ha'Temei'im lachem be'Chol ha'Sharetz")?

(b)Why would this not automatically incorporate the milk of Temei'im (which both the Rabbanan and Rebbi Shimon would agree would be permitted, were it not for their respective Pesukim forbidding it)?

(c)Why is that? What is the Chidush assuming that the reason that a woman who gives birth does not see blood for twenty-four months, because the blood of Nidus turns into milk?

(d)What other reason might there be for her not seeing blood?

(e)According to that reason, why would we have permitted a camel's milk? What is then the Torah's Chidush in permitting milk of a Tahor animal?

6)

(a)We learn from the "Ha" (in the Pasuk in Shemini "Eileh ha'Temei'im lachem be'Chol ha'Sharetz") that - the juice, the gravy and the bits of meat and vegetables at the bottom of the pot of non-Kasher meat or fish are forbidden, just like the fish and meat themselves.

(b)This would not automatically incorporate the milk of Temei'im (which both the Rabbanan and Rebbi Shimon would agree would be permitted, were it not for their respective Pesukim forbidding it) - because the Heter to drink milk, even of Kasher species of animals, is anyway a Chidush, as we will now see.

(c)Assuming that the reason that a woman who gives birth does not see blood for twenty-four months, because the blood of Nidus turns into milk - the Chidush is that we nevertheless permit it in the case of a Beheimah Tehorah, in which case, we may as well permit that of a Beheimah Temei'ah as well.

(d)The alternative way of explaining her not seeing blood, is on account of the affect of the birth on her blood-producing limbs - that cease to function for two years.

(e)According to that reason, we would have permitted a camel's milk, seeing as the Chidush in permitting the milk of a Tahor animal would be that - any other limb of a live animal is Asur, yet the Torah permits its milk.

7)

(a)Why can the source of the Heter to drink milk not be ...

1. ... the Torah's prohibition of Basar be'Chalav (implying that milk alone is permitted)?

2. ... the same prohibition of Basar be'Chalav, according to Rebbi Shimon, who permits deriving benefit from them?

3. ... the Pasuk in Re'ei (in connection with Pesulei ha'Mukdashin) "Tizbach ... Basar", 've'Lo Chalav' (implying that Chulin milk is permitted)?

4. ... the Pasuk in Mishlei "ve'Dei Chalav Izim le'Lachmecha le'Lechem Beisecha ... "?

(b)We nevertheless cite the source for the Heter as the Pasuk in Shmuel, where Yishai sent his son David to the battlefront with cheese for his brothers. Why can we not refute this proof in the same way as we rejected the previous proof (from the Pasuk in Mishlei)?

(c)What second source do we cite from the well-known Pasuk in Sh'mos?

(d)And what do we finally prove from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "L'chu Lachmu be'Lachmi, u'Lechu Shivru be'Lo Kesef ... Yayin ve'Chalav"?

7)

(a)The source of the Heter to drink milk cannot be ...

1. ... the Torah's prohibition of Basar be'Chalav (implying that milk alone is permitted) - because perhaps the Isur and the Heter in this Pasuk pertain to deriving benefit from it, but not to eating it.

2. ... the same prohibition of Basar be'Chalav, according to Rebbi Shimon, who permits deriving benefit from them - because then the Pasuk might be referring to the Isur and Heter of cooking them.

3. ... the Pasuk in Re'ei (in connection with Pesulei ha'Mukdashin) "Tizbach ... Basar", 've'Lo Chalav' (implying that Chulin milk is permitted) - because here too, who says that the Pasuk is talking about the Isur and Heter Achilah, and not just that of Hana'ah.

4. ... the Pasuk in Mishlei "ve'Dei Chalav Izim le'Lachmecha le'Lechem Beisecha ... " - since this Pasuk may well be referring to to doing business with it.

(b)We nevertheless cite the source for the Heter as the Pasuk in Shmuel, where Yishai sent his son David to the battlefront with cheese for his brothers. We cannot refute this proof in the same way as we rejected the previous one (from the Pasuk in Mishlei) - because the battlefront is not a place where one generally does business (to whom would one sell it anyway? To the enemy whom one is about to kill?)

(c)The second source that we cite from the well-known Pasuk in Sh'mos is - "Eretz Zavas Chalav u'Devash" (and the Torah would be unlikely to praise Eretz Yisrael, through something that is forbidden to eat.

(d)And our final source is - the Pasuk in Yeshayah "L'chu Lachmu be'Lachmi, u'Lechu Shivru be'Lo Kesef ... Yayin ve'Chalav" (which is clearly talking about eating and drinking, and not about doing business with it).

8)

(a)What problem do we now have regarding the Torah's repetition of "Shafan, Arneves and Chazir"?

(b)To solve this problem, we cite a Beraisa. What does the Tana say there to justify the entire Parshah of Re'ei (which repeats all the animals and bird)? Why does the Torah repeat all ...

1. ... the animals?

2. ... the birds?

(c)Then why do we find it necessary to explain the repetition of "Gamal"? Why will the Beraisa's explanation not suffice to explain that too?

8)

(a)The problem regarding the Torah's repetition of "Shafan, Arneves and Chazir" is - what do we Darshen from there (like we do from the repetition of Gamal)?

(b)To solve this problem, we cite a Beraisa, which explains the Torah only repeats all ...

1. ... the animals - for the sake of inserting the Shesu'ah (an animal with two backs and two spinal cords) in the Parshah of the forbidden animals, even though it did not appear in Shemini.

2. ... the birds - to be able to insert the Ra'ah, which does not appear under that name in Shemini.

(c)We nevertheless see fit to explain the repetition of "Gamal" - because whenever it is possible to Darshen, we do.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF