1)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav requires a Talmid-Chacham to become proficient in three things. One of them is K'sav - knowing how to write one's name in script (see Rashash).

(b)The other two are - Shechitah and Milah.

(c)Rav Chananya bar Shalmaya in the name of Rav adds another three. One of them is Kesher shel Tefilin - which requires special expertise in that the Yud and the Daled of Shakay are incorporated into the knot of the shel Yad and the shel Rosh, respectively.

(d)The second thing on Chananya bar Shalmaya Amar Rav's list is Birchas Chasanim ...

1. ... Sheva B'rachos. The third is ...

2. ... attaching Tzitzis to the corner of one's garment.

(e)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav did not include the latter three in his list - because they are common (in which case, everyone is automatically conversant with them, and the Talmid Chacham's service will not be required [see also Tosfos DH 've'Idach']).

2)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel also says that - one is not permitted to eat from the Shechitah of a Shochet who is not conversant with Hilchos Shechitah.

(b)The five basic things (that invalidate the Shechitah) that he incorporates in Hilchos Shechitah include Shehiyah, D'rasah and Chaladah (which we already cited earlier) - Chaladah and Hagramah.

(c)All five are actually cited in Mishnahs later. The P'sul that is contained in the Mishnah 'Someone who ...

1. ... waits (during the Shechitah) the time it takes to perform the entire Shechitah' is - Shehiyah.

2. ... Shechts and severs the animal's head in one go' (without moving the knife backwards and forwards) is - D'rasah.

3. ... Shechts the Veshet (the esophagus) and pulls out the Kaneh (the wind-pipe) or vice-versa' is - Ikur.

4. ... hides the knife (during the course of the Shechitah)' is - Chaladah (like a Chuldah [a weasel] which hides in the corner).

5. ... Shechts outside the Taba'as (the large laryngeal cartilage)' is - Hagramah (because one guides one's hand outside the regular spot, like tipping the scales, which is called Girumav).

(d)Even though all five are specifically mentioned in the Mishnah, Rav Yehudah is coming to teach us that the Shechitah is Pasul - even in a case where the butcher Shechted in front of us faultlessly two or three times ...

(e)... since there are times when he will make Shehiyah or D'rasah, without even realizing that this renders his Shechitah Pasul.

3)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel - obligates the Shochet to examine the Si'manim after he has Shechted the animal.

(b)Rav Yosef queries this ruling in light of Rebbi Shimon in the Mishnah in ha'Shochet, who gives the Shi'ur Shehiyah as k'dei Bikur. Assuming that the Tana is referring to the time it takes to examine the Simanim - he extrapolates from there that the Tana already requires the Shochet to perform such an examination, rendering Rav Yehudah's ruling superfluous.

(c)In answering the Kashya, Abaye cites Rebbi Yochanan, who explains that - the Tana is referring to the time it takes for the Chacham to examine (not the Simanim, but) the Shochet's knife.

(d)The problem with Rebbi Yochanan's statement the way it stands is that - it clashes with the principle Nasata Devarecha le'Shi'urim (the Chachamim do not give a Shi'ur that differs from case to case, since it includes the time it takes to get to the Chacham), which varies according to the circumstances.

(e)So we amend the Lashon to - the time it takes for a Shochet who is himself an outstanding Chacham to examine his own knife.

4)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer ben Antignos in the name of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yanai rules that if the Shochet failed to examine the Si'manim, we declare the animal to be a T'reifah. According to the Beraisa - it is a Neveilah.

(b)The ramifications of the Machlokes are - whether the animal is also Tamei Neveilah (the Beraisa) or not (Rebbi Eliezer ben Antignos).

(c)And we connect the Machlokes to a statement of Rav Huna, who rules that an animal ...

1. ... in its lifetime - has a Chezkas Isur (Eiver min ha'Chai) until one knows for sure that it has been Shechted properly.

2. ... after it has been Shechted - has a Chezkas Kashrus until one knows how it became a T'reifah (which will be explained shortly).

(d)The S'vara behind the principle of Chazakah - is equivalent to that of Ein Safek Motzi mi'Yedei Vaday (a Safek cannot change a Vaday status).

5)

(a)To explain the Machlokes ...

1. ... the Beraisa considers the animal a Neveilah - because if we assume the animal not to have been Shechted, then it is a Neveilah, and a Neveilah is Tamei.

2. ... Rebbi Eliezer ben Antignos considers it a T'reifah, but not a Neveilah - because, even if the animal had not been Shechted, it would not have been Tamei, so how can the Chazakah that results from not being Shechted, render the animal Tamei?

6)

(a)The problem with the second half of Rav Huna's statement Nishch'tah, be'Chezkas Heter Omedes ... is that - unless there is a Re'usa (a defect that might in fact, render the animal a T'reifah), he ought to have said Nishch'tah, Hutrah.

(b)And we answer that - Rav Huna does indeed speak where there is a Re'usa.

(c)We dismiss the initial suggestion that he is speaking where ...

1. ... a wolf came and removed the intestines - because in that case, there is no Re'usa either.

2. ... he found a hole in them - because in that case, there is no reason for the animal not to be T'reifah.

7)

(a)To establish the case, we cite Rebbi Aba, who asked Rav Huna about a wolf that ran off with a Shechted animal's intestines, and then returned them - with a hole.

(b)And he asked him - whether we suspect that the wolf's tooth entered the hole that had existed already before (in which case the animal is T'reifah), or whether we consider that too far-fetched, preferring to assume that it pierced the intestines and made the hole after running off with them (in which case it is Kasher).

(c)Rav Huna replied Ein Chosh'shin Shema be'Makom Nekev Nikeiv (We do not suspect that perhaps it made a hole in a spot where there already was one).

(d)And that is precisely what he is referring to in the second half of his previous statement 'Nishch'tah, be'Chezkas Heter Omedes ... ' (even if the wolf made off with the intestines, and returned them with a hole).

8)

(a)Rebbi Aba queried Rav Huna from a Beraisa, which forbids a fig in which one sees a bird pecking a hole, or a hole in a water-melon which a mouse is eating - because we suspect that the hole that they made coincides exactly with the spot which a snake had previously pierced with its fangs.

(b)Rav Huna reconciles his ruling with the Beraisa - by differentiating between Safek Isur (where we go le'Kula under the current circumstances) and Safek Sakanah (where we go le'Chumra).

(c)Rava queries Rav Huna's distinction however - based on the principle Safek Isura le'Chumra, which is just as much Halachah as Safek Sakanta le'Chumra.

9)

(a)Abaye tries to defend Rav Huna with a Mishnah in Taharos, where the Tana rules - Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, Tahor ...

(b)... whereas we have a ruling Safek Mayim Megulin ... Asurin (water which may have been left uncovered is Asur) - unless we differentiate between Safek Isur and Safek Sakanta.

(c)Rava dismisses Abaye's proof however, on the grounds that we learn specifically Safek *Tum'ah* bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, Tahor from Sotah - but not Safek Isur.

10)

(a)Rav Shimi queried Rava from a Beraisa, which rules that if a weasel walks over Terumah loaves with a Sheretz in its mouth, which may, or may not, have touched the loaves - the loaves are Tahor ...

(b)... and this Tana does not draw a distinction between a R'shus ha'Rabim and a R'shus ha'Yachid (yet Safek Mayim Megulin is Tamei)?

(c)Rava refutes this proof too - by adding that we also learn from Sotah that Safek Tum'ah is only Tamei, where, like by Sotah, those involved are able to reply if they are asked whether they are Tamei or not, which a Sheretz is not. And here too, this leniency does not extend to Safek Isur (which is no different than Safek Sakanta).

11)

(a)Rav Ashi queries Rava from a Mishnah in Parah, which rules that a flask containing spring water for the Mei Parah that one leaves open, and later finds covered, is Tamei - because we suspect that a Tamei person came and covered it.

(b)The Mishnah must be speaking about water that was not yet sanctified with the ashes of the Parah Adumah, because if it was - then the word Tamei would be inappropriate, because if the Tana is coming to teach us that it is Tamei, Mei Chatas is Tamei anyway; Whereas if he is coming to teach us that the water is Pasul, then he should have said Pasul?

(c)It is obvious that - one may no longer use the water as Mei Chatas (due to the many additional Chumros regarding Taharah that the Chachamim initiated regarding its preparation).

(d)In the reverse case, where one leaves the water covered and finds it uncovered, assuming that a weasel could possibly have drunk from it (or a snake according to Rabban Gamliel), or if dew fell on it during the night - the Tana invalidates it.

(e)It is possible for a weasel to have drunk from the water but not a snake - if it was placed on a high shelf that a snake cannot reach.

12)

(a)The Tana declares the water Pasul (but not Tamei) because ...

1. ... a weasel (or a snake) drank from it - since it laps up the water in such a way that some of it falls back into the flask (whilst a snake vomits the water back into the flask [rendering it Pasul because of water that has been used]), or perhaps because it is like water that is poured from one K'li into another, which is no longer considered Mayim Chayim (spring water, as prescribed by the Torah).

2. ... dew fell on it - because dew is not Mayim Chayim.

(b)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi explains that ...

1. ... in the Reisha, we declare the water Tamei, because seeing as only human beings cover vessels (and not animals), it can only have been a person who touched it, and we suspect that a Tamei person covered it, because Tamei people are common.

2. ... in the Seifa, we declare it Tahor, because Sheratzim uncover vessels too, so it could have been a Sheretz that did it, and Sheratzim and Tahor people constitute a majority (as against people who are Tamei).

(c)Rav Ashi finally extrapolates that Sakanah is more stringent than Isur (like Rav Huna and Abaye) from ...

1. ... from the fact that, in the Seifa, we go after the Rov, even le'Kula (even though by Safek Mayim Megulin, we don't, as we will see. Note, since we are currently concerned about whether Chamira Sakanta me'Isura or not, the fact that the Sugya initially discussed a rare Safek, then switched to a regular one, and now, to a Rov, is of no consequence]).

2. ... an inference from the Reisha and the Seifa - because the Mishnah implies that if he found the flask as he left it, the water would be neither Tamei nor Pasul, in spite of the Safek that a Tamei person may have touched it, or a weasel or a snake may have drank from it (whereas in the equivalent case by Mayim Megulin, the water is forbidden.

13)

(a)A third alternative is to learn both Isura and Sakanta from the Seifa from the Lashon 'Pesulah' - implying 'Pasul' but not Tamei (as we explained). This in turn, implies that we suspect a snake of having uncovered it and drunk from it, but not a Tamei person, a clear proof that Chamira Sakanta me'Isura.

(b)We would then be forced to change the text in the Sugya howev4er - by omitting the final phrase 've'Ilu Safek Mayim Megulin, Asurin'.

(c)We reject this explanation however, bearing in mind that the Tana Kama refers, not to a snake, but to a weasel. And besides - even Rabban Gamliel includes the possibility that a weasel drunk from it as well as a snake, in which case, the Tana should have said Teme'ah, and not Pesulah.

(d)Finally, if the Mishnah was also concerned with Sakanah, the ideal ruling (at least, according to Rabban Gamliel) would have been - Pesulah (because of a snake) u'Teme'ah (because of Adam Tamei).