ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
in memory of Reb David ben Aharon Ha'Levi Rosenwald z"l
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) We just cited the Beraisa validating Shechitah that is performed with a wheel. To reconcile it with the Beraisa which invalidates it even Bedi'eved - we establish it by a potter's wheel, which works manually; whereas the other Beraisa speaks about a water-wheel, which works by means of a flowing river (rendering such a Shechitah Pasul, because it is lacking 'Ko'ach Gavra' [a manual act required in connection with Shechitah]).
(b) We might reconcile the two Beraisos however, even if they are both speaking about a water-wheel - by drawing a distinction between 'Ko'ach Rishon' (the initial act that caused the water to flow, such as removing a board that was preventing the water from flowing), which is Kasher, and 'Ko'ach Sheini' (the water that continues to flow automatically after the board has been removed), which is Pasul.
(a) We base the current distinction on a statement of Rav Papa, who ruled that, if Reuven ties-up Shimon before killing him, by diverting a stream of water to flow over him - he is Chayav.
(b) And we establish Rav Papa's statement by 'Ko'ach Rishon' which renders him Chayav - because the water is considered as if it was his arrows that killed him.
(c) 'Ko'ach Sheini' in this case refers to - where Reuven placed the trussed-up Shimon at a distance from the source of the water, so that by the time the water reached him, the flow was automatic (and no longer the direct result of Reuven's action).
(d) The basis for the distinction between the first flow and the second one is - that whereas the first flow is considered Reuven's action (as we explained), the second one falls under the category of 'G'rama' (indirectly causing a person's death, for which one is Patur).
(a) Rav had asked Rebbi - for the source confining Shechitah to Talush (detached), causing the latter to quote the Pasuk in Vayeira (in connection with Akeidas Yitzchak) "Vayikach es ha'Ma'acheles Lishchot es B'no" (implying that the knife was Talush).
(b) When this session took place - Rebbi Chiya was sitting in front of Rav, facing Rebbi.
(c) Rebbi Chiya disagreed with Rebbi, as we learned above. When ...
1. ... he said to Rav 'Vav a'Apusa ka'Amar', he meant - that Rebbi's answer was wrong, like a 'Vav' that one writes across a rough block of wood, and, which, due to the numerous grooves in the wood, comes out improperly written (or he refers to the actual grooves as the 'Vav').
2. ... they asked him how he interpreted the Pasuk that Rebbi quoted, and he replied 'K'ra Zerizuseih de'Avraham ka'Mashma-lan', he meant - that the Pasuk is teaching us Avraham's Zerizus (keenness to perform the Mitzvah, how he took a knife with him, refusing to rely on the numerous rocks that must have abounded in the area.
(d) Alternatively, we will ascribe ...
1. ... Rav's querying of Rebbi's reply - to his not having heard the Pasuk that he quoted.
2. ... the question 've'Hha K'ra ka'Amar' - to Rav's querying of Rebbi Chiya, as to how he could possibly argue with Rebbi.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Eloheihem al he'Harim" - that someone who worships something that is Mechubar le'Karka, does not render it Asur.
(b) Rava therefore proves from Rav's ruling that someone who prostrates himself to his house renders it Asur - that 'Talush ve'li'Besof Chibro' has a Din of Talush, as far as Avodah-Zarah is concerned (since the bricks of the house were initially Talush).
(c) Regarding the Din of be'chi Yutan' (Hechsher Mayim), if a person is pleased when he sees that rain has filled his ...
1. ... Keilim - the water is 'be'chi Yutan' (to render fruit that it touches Muchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah.
2. ... pit - it is not.
(d) The difference - is based on the fact that water that the owner had in mind to use for Talush exclusively, is subject to the Din of 'be'chi Yutan', but not what is meant to be used for Mechubar.
(a) The Mishnah in Machshirin rules that someone who places an overturned dish on to a wall, in order ...
1. ... that the rain should wash it - the rain that subsequently falls renders it Muchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah.
2. ... to protect the wall from getting wet - does not.
(b) We can infer from the Reisha of the Mishnah, - that if a person places an overturned dish in a position that deflects the rain on to the wall in order to wash it - the water is not Muchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah, whereas the Seifa implies - that it is.
(c) Rebbi Elazar resolves the contradictory inferences with 'Tavra, Mi she'Shanah Zu Lo Shanah Zu', meaning that - the first Tana holds that 'Talush ve'li'Besof Chibro' is considered Mechubar, whereas the second Tana considers it Talush ...
(d) ... which is what Rava was referring to when he declared that this was a Machlokes.
(a) Rav Papa disagrees with Rebbi Elazar (and with Rava), establishing the entire Mishnah like one Tana, who holds - 'Talush ve'li'Besof Chibro' - is considered Talush.
(b) And he establishes the Reisha - by the wall of a cave, where the water is not Muchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah, because it is Mechubar Me'ikara ...
(c) ... even if someone dug it manually, because although he dug the cave, he did not build the wall, which stood automatically.
(d) Rav Papa changes the format of the Beraisa, by adding to the Reisha - 'Bameh Devarim Amurim, be'Kosel Me'arah, Aval be'Kosel Binyan ... '.
(a) Rava now asks what the Din will be by 'Talush ve'li'Besof Chibro' with regard to Shechitah. We try to prove from the Beraisa (which we cited earlier) 'Hayah Tzur Yotzei min ha'Kosel, O she'Hayah Kanah Oleh Me'eilav, Ve'shachat, Shechitaso Pesulah' - that 'Talush ve'li'Besof Chibro' regarding Shechitah is considered Mechubar and is Pasul.
(b) We ...
1. ... refute this proof however - by establishing the Beraisa by the wall of a cave (which is Mechubar Me'ikara, as we we discussed a little earlier).
2. ... substantiate the refutation - by referring to 'the cane which grew by itself' that juxtaposes it, and that is certainly Mechubar Me'ikara.
(c) And we refute the proof from the same Beraisa ...
1. ... 'Na'atz Sakin be'Kosel ve'Shachat bah, Shechitaso Kesheirah' (that Talush ve'li'Besof Mwchubar is considered Talush) - by pointing out that a person is not usually Mevateil a knife in a wall (in which case, it is not Mechubar at all).
2. ... 'bi'Mechubar le'Karka, Shechitaso Kesheirah' - by suggesting that the case of 'Na'atz Sakin be'Kosel ... ', that follows, might be coming to explain that (rather than considering it an independent case).
(a) Rav Anan Amar Shmuel qualifies the Beraisa that we just quoted 'Na'atz Sakin be'Kosel ve'Shachat bah, Shechitaso Kesheirah' - by confining it to where the knife is on top and the animal underneath; but where the animal is on top and the knife underneath, the Shechitah is Pasul ...
(b) ... because we are afraid that, due to the weight of the animal, the Shochet will make D'rasah.
(c) Rav Z'vid reconciles Rav Anan with the Beraisa, which validates the Shechitah irrespective of whether the knife is below and the neck of the animal on top, or whether the knife is on top and the neck of the animal, below (even assuming that the Tana is speaking about the neck of an animal) - by establishing the Reisha by Talush, and the Seifa, by Mechubar ('li'Tzedadin Katani').
(d) Rav Papa avoids having to come on to 'li'Tzedadin' - by establishing the Beraisa by the Shechitah of a bird.
(a) Rav Chisda Amar Rebbi Yitzchak (or a Beraisa) lists five things that one should not do with a K'rumis shel Kanah (the sharp edge of a cane). Shechitah, Milah, cutting meat - picking one's teeth and cleaning oneself after going to the bathroom.
(b) Rav Chisda's reason for prohibiting these things is - because when cutting with such a cane, it tends to leave splinters, and is therefore dangerous.
(c) Rav Papa reconciles this with the Beraisa, which specifically permits Shechting with a 'K'rumis shel Kanah', as we learned earlier - by translating 'K'rumis shel Kanah' there, as the sharp edge of a dry reed (which does not leave splinters).
(a) On the one hand ...
1. ... Rav Papa would cut the innards of fish with the sharp edge of a cane - because they are sufficiently transparent for any splinters to be easily discernible (which therefore do not constitute a danger); whilst on the other ...
2. ... Rabah bar Rav Huna would use it to cut a bird into pieces - because the flesh of a bird is soft, dispensing with the need to apply much pressure, in which case the cane will not leave any splinters.
(b) Mar said that if someone uses anything flammable to wipe himself clean - his Shinei ha'Karkashta (the glands supporting the intestines) will fall out.
(c) Rav Papa therefore explains that the 'cleaning oneself with the sharp edge of a cane' mentioned by Rav Chisda, refers to - cleaning out a wound (since not using it to clean oneself we already know from Mar).
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'ha'Kol Shochtin u'Le'olam Shochtin'. 'ha'Kol Shochtin' means - that everything requires Shechitah, even birds.
(b) We need a Mishnah to teach us that - since it is not speciically mentioned in the Torah.
(c) Initially, Rabah ascribes 'Le'olam Shochtin' to Rebbi Yishmael in a Beraisa - who interprets the Pasuk in Re'ei "Ki Yarchiv Hash-m ... es Gevulcha Ve'amarta Ochlah Basar" to mean - that one is permitted to eat Basar Ta'avah (meat that is eaten without being brought as a Korban), after the Churban Beis-Hamikdash.
(d) We need a Pasuk to teach us this, because we might otherwise have thought - that once Yisrael were sent into exile, the Heter to eat Basar Ta'avah that came into effect when they entered Eretz Yisrael was rescinded and it was once again Asur like it had been in the desert.
(e) Someone who ate Basar Ta'avah in the desert - was Chayav Kareis.
(a) Rav Yosef asks on Rabah from the Lashon 'Le'olam Shochtim', which, according to him, should have read - Le'olam Shochtin ve'Ochlin' (since the main Chidush is the Heter Achilah, and not the Heter Shechitah).
(b) He also queries Rabah - in that seeing as Basar Ta'avah was originally forbidden because of Yisrael's easy access to the Mishkan, and became permitted when the entered Eretz Yisrael, because it became too far to travel, now that they were in Galus, there was even more reason to permit it. So we do not need a Mishnah to teach us this?
(a) So Rav Yosef ascribes 'Le'olam Shochtim' to Rebbi Akiva, who learns from the Pasuk in Re'ei "ki Yirchak Mimcha ha'Makom ... Ve'zavachta mi'Bekarcha u'mi'Tzoncha" - the prohibition of eating animals that have been killed by means other than Shechitah ('Basar Nechirah', which really means meat from an animal that was torn open from the notrils down to the chest), once they entered Eretz Yisrael.
(b) We would otherwise have thought - that once they left Eretz Yisrael, Basar Nechirah would again become permitted, like it was during the forty years that they traveled in the desert.