1)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that Elel combines with the food to make up the Shi'ur k'Beitzah to be Metamei Tum'as Ochlin. According to Rebbi Yochanan, Elel is Mart'ka, the sinew of the spine and the neck (known as the cervical ligament [see also Tosfos DH 'Mart'ka') - which is wide, white and extremely hard.

(b)According to Resh Lakish - it is the bit of flesh which the butcher sometimes cuts away from the animal together with the skin during skinning.

(c)The Pasuk in Iyov "ve'Ulam Atem Toflei Sheker Rof'ei Elil Kulchem" implies that - Elel is flesh that cannot be cured once it is cut, a Kashya on Resh Lakish, since flesh that one cuts away from an animal sometimes re-grows after it has been tied back in place (whereas a broken cervical ligament cannot heal).

(d)To resolve the discrepancy between the Pasuk and Resh Lakish's interpretation of our Mishnah - we conclude that Resh Lakish concedes that the Pasuk is referring to the cervical ligament, and that he is arguing with Rebbi Yochanan over the Tana's interpretation of the word.

2)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah gives Elel that one gathers to one place the Din of Neveilah, provided it constitutes a k'Zayis, whereas the Tana Kama specifically says 'Aval Lo Tum'as Neveilos.' - That is precisely their bone of contention.

(b)Despite the fact that Rebbi Yehudah's reason is because gathering it to one place is a declaration of Chashivus, he will concede that even a k'Zayis Elel in one place is not Metamei - there where it was gathered unintentionally (if children collected it).

(c)Rebbi Yehudah cannot be referring to the Gid ha'Shedrah - since it is no more an Ochel than a piece of wood, in which case the fact that there is a k'Zayis of it in one place will not turn it into a food.

(d)We therefore conclude that - Rebbi Yochanan agrees with Resh Lakish's interpretation of Elel, which is what Rebbi Yehudah is talking about; only he maintains that it means Mart'ka as well.

3)

(a)The problem with Elel if it means Basar she'Paltaso Sakin is that Mah Nafshach, if one ...

1. ... had in mind to eat it - then why does it require Tziruf, seeing as Machshavah helps to render something that is not edible into a food (as we learned in the fourth Perek).

2. ... did not have in mind to eat it - then it ought to be Bateil, so why is it Metzaref).

(b)Rebbi Avin and Rebbi Meisha argue over this point. One of them establishes our Mishnah in a case where someone thought about part of it, and part of it he didn't - without specifying which part he had in mind to eat. His Machshavah on the one part reveals that he did not intend to be Mevateil the other half either, and they will combine to make up a k'Beitzah of Tum'as Ochlin (see Maharshal).

(c)The other one establishes it where part of it was loosened by a Chayah, and part of it by the knife - in other words, a Chayah loosened a piece of flesh near the skin whilst the animal was still alive, and after it was Shechted, the Shochet cut off an additional piece next to it ...

(d)... leaving the two combined parts attached to the skin, and not knowing which is which. In this case, there was no Machshavah and the part that was bitten off by the Chayah is not Bateil, whilst the other part is. If the whole piece now combines with the Basar, the part bitten off by the Chayah will combine to make up a Shi'ur k'Beitzah of Tum'as Ochlin.

4)

(a)The Mishnah in Taharos rules that the beak and the claws of a bird are subject to Tum'ah, are Metamei others - and combine to make up the Shi'ur Tum'ah k'Beitzah of food.

(b)Even though the Tana is talking about the Neveilah of a Tahor bird, it is not Tamei anyway - because a Nivlas Of Tahor is only Metamei when one eats it, whilst the Tana is talking about Tum'ah through touching it.

(c)The problem with this ruling regarding the beak is that - a beak is stone-hard, and not fit to eat (so on what grounds is it considered a food?).

(d)Rebbi Elazar establishes it by the lower beak. Bearing in mind that the lower beak is as hard as the upper one, Rav Papa amends that to - the lower section of the upper beak (comprising a thin strip of flesh that is attached to the beak along its entire length.

(e)And ...

1. ... Rebbi Elazar interprets the claws (which are hard too) - as the point where they become absorbed in the flesh (where they become soft.

2. ... Rav Papa establishes the horns referred to in our Mishnah as - the end part of the horn (where it emerges from the head), which produces blood when it is cut.

5)

(a)With reference to our Mishnah, 'ha'Shochet Beheimah Temei'ah le'Nochri, u'Mefarcheses, Metamei Tum'as Ochlin', the Tana'im (cited by Rebbi Asi) say that - besides Machshavah, to render that animal subject to Tum'ah, it also needs Hechsher.

(b)Machshavah will also help, even though the animal may not in fact, be eaten - in a case where it is a Nochri who performed the Shechitah on behalf of a Yisrael, since there the animal would be permitted to the Yisrael, if a Yisrael had Shechted it.

(c)If however ...

1. ... a Yisrael Shechts a Beheimah Tehorah which is still convulsing - it will not require a specific Machshavah to render the Basar, an Ochel.

2. ... a Nochri Shechts a Beheimah Temei'ah - then Machshavah will not even help to render it an Ochel.

(d)To reconcile our Mishnah (which permits a Yisrael to eat an animal that is still convulsing) with the ruling in Sanhedrin prohibiting eating part of an animal before it is completely dead - we establish the latter to a Rabbinical decree, whereas our Mishnah is based on the Torah-law, which permits it.

6)

(a)Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael learns from the Pasuk in Shemini (in connection with Hechsher Lekabeil Tum'ah) "ve'Chi Yutan Mayim al Zera" - that whatever, like seeds, is not eligible to adopt a Tum'ah Chamurah, requires Hechsher, but not something that is.

(b)'Tum'ah Chamurah' is - where through contact with a Meis, something becomes an Av ha'Tum'ah, which can therefore be Metamei even Adam ve'Keilim [and not just Ochel u'Mashkeh]).

(c)What determines that something cannot become an Av ha'Tum'ah, even through contact with a Meis is - the fact that it cannot be Toveled in a Mikvah (as we learn from Pesukim in Chukas) ...

(d)... incorporating food, drink and earthenware vessels.

7)

(a)Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa rules that a Nivlas Of Tahor requires Machchavah, before it can adopt Tum'as Ochel - but not Hechsher, seeing as it stands to be Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah (if someone eats it).

(b)The problem this poses on the Tana'im cited by Rebbi Asi is that - seeing as once the animal in question stops convulsing, it stands to be Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah, why does it require a Hechsher ... ?

(c)Chizkiyah answers that - in fact, it is theoretically possible to prevent the animal from becoming Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah, by cutting off one strip (consisting of less than a k'Zayis) at a time, and feeding it to the dogs (see Tosfos DH 'Ho'il'), before it stops convulsing.

8)

(a)Rebbi Yirmiyah queries Chizkiyah from another ruling of his. In a case where, after Shechitah, an animal is still convulsing, Chizkiyah rules that a ben No'ach will not be punished for eating Eiver min ha'Chai. Rebbi Yochanan holds that - he will.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan will concede to Chizkiyah that in the equivalent case, but by a Beheimah Tehorah, the Nochri is not Chayav - due to the principle that whatever is permitted to a Yisrael cannot be forbidden to a Nochri.

(c)Rebbi Yirmiyah asked that if, as Chizkiyah says, a Mefarcheses vis-a-vis a Nochri is not a Chai, then it must be a Neveilah - a Kashya on his previous ruling, which holds that it is not?

(d)Rebbi Zeira reconciled both of Chizkiyah's rulings - by rejecting Rebbi Yirmiyah's inference in his second statement. In fact, he answers, Chizkiyah considers a Mefarcheses to be in limbo, no longer a Chai, but not yet a Meis.

9)

(a)Rebbi Elazar cites Rav Oshaya's Beraisa in support of Rebbi Yochanan. The Tana rules there that in a case where a Yisrael has Shechted Shenayim or Rov Shenayim of a Beheimah Temei'ah that is still convulsing ...

1. ... it is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin.

2. ... it is not Metamei Tum'as Neveilos.

(b)The Tana rules that if an Eiver or Basar is detached from it - it is as if it was detached from a live animal. Both are therefore forbidden to a Nochri, even after the animal has died.

(c)It is the latter ruling of the Beraisa - which supports Rebbi Yochanan (in his ruling Yeshnah le'Eivarim).

10)

(a)The Tana rules, regarding the same Tamei animal, where the Yisrael ...

1. ... Shechted one Siman or Rov of one Siman - that the animal is not Metamei Tum'as Ochlin (seeing as we do not find any Heter Achilah in such a case).

2. ... performed Nechirah on it that - it is not Metamei at all ...

(b)... and the Tana issues the same ruling in a case where a Nochri performed the Shechitah or the Nechirah on behalf of a Yisrael, and not vice-versa.

(c)If however, the Nochri Shechted Shenayim or Rov Shenayim on behalf of a Yisrael, the Beraisa rules that it is Tamei Tum'as Ochlin but not Tum'as Neveilos - and a Nochri is forbidden to eat an Eiver or Basar that is detached from it, even after the animal dies (since on the one hand it is Eiver or Basar min ha'Chai, and on the other, a Yisrael is not permitted to eat it).

(d)The Beraisa also rules that in a case where ...

1. ... the Nochri Shechted half the Kaneh of a Beheimah Tehorah (which does not render the animal a T'reifah), and a Yisrael came and completed the Shechitah - the Shechitah is Kasher.

2. ... a Yisrael began the Shechitah (irrespective of whether it was a place which rendered the animal a T'reifah or not) and a Nochri completed it - the Shechitah is Pasul.

11)

(a)Finally, the Tana instructs someone who wishes to eat a piece of meat that has been cut from an animal before it actually died - to salt it very well and to rinse it very well.

(b)It is obvious why it needs to be rinsed particularly well. The reason that it requires a more thorough salting than other meat is - because the animal was not given the chance to release the excessive blood with its last gasp, with the result that when cutting off the piece, some of that blood became absorbed in the limb.

(c)He is permitted to eat it - only after the animal dies ...

(d)... and, based on the principle that whatever is permitted to a Yisrael, is permitted to a Nochri too - so is a Nochri, as we already learned.

12)

(a)The Tana's last statement supports Rav Idi bar Avin Amar Rebbi Yitzchak bar Ashi'an, who, besides reiterating what the Beraisa says, adds that - cutting off a k'Zayis of meat from the Beis ha'Shechitah is healthy (in the form of a cure for various illnesses).

(b)Rebbi Elazar asked - what the Din will be if the Yisrael, in the course of Shechting the Beheimah Temei'ah, or the Nochri, the Beheimah Tehorah, performed Shehiyah or D'rasah - whether it is considered a Shechutah or a Nechurah.

(c)That old man extrapolated from Rebbi Yochanan, who said that the Shechitah requires Hechsher just like a regular Shechitah that - if anything goes wrong with it (such as Shehiyah or D'rasah), it is invalid, thereby resolving Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah.

(d)We refute his proof however, by citing Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak, who explains Rebbi Yochanan to mean that - it requires an inspection of the knife.

13)

(a)When Rebbi Zeira asked Rav Sheishes whether the same animal saves absorbed Keilim from Tum'ah, he meant to ask - whether it has the Din of a live animal, which saves Keilim that it has swallowed from Tum'as Ohel (as we learned in the fourth Perek), or not.

(b)When the latter replied that 'If it is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin, how can it possibly save from Tum'ah?!', the former retorted - (On the contrary) 'Since it is not Metamei Tum'as Neveilos, why should it not save from Tum'ah?!'

(c)Abaye adopted Rav Sheishes' ruling (which considers the animal dead) - but continued - 've'ha'Rove'ah Chayav' (sentencing someone who performs bestiality with it to Misah, an indication that it is considered alive).

(d)We therefore explain that - Abaye really considers the animal to be alive, and he only rules that the animal does not save the Keilim that it has swallowed, le'Chumra (see Tosfos DH 'Abaye Amar').

14)

(a)Rav Huna qualifies Rebbi Yehudah's ruling regarding Elel ha'Mechunas, confining it to where the butcher gathered the k'Zayis intentionally. Even Rebbi Yehudah will agree however, that one is not Chayav because of Neveilah - if for example little children gathered it ...

(b)... because once the skin has been removed together with bits of flesh attached here and there, they become Bateil, and no longer have the status of Basar.

(c)We learned in the fourth Perek 'Or she'Shalko, Metamei Tum'as Ochlin' - because it is possible to render skin a food by one's actions, but one cannot turn it into Basar (which is subject to the Isur of Neveilah, whereas skin is not).