1)

(a)Rabah now proves from the Beraisa (where Rebbi Shimon includes Petter Chamor in the list of things that are not a food, but precludes Basar be'Chalav, because one is able to feed it to Nochrim) - Rebbi Shimon must agree that a Petter Chamor that had its neck broken is Asur be'Hana'ah, because otherwise, he ought to have listed it with Basar be'Chalav.

(b)To refute Rabah's proof, we establish the Beraisa - where the owner did not have in mind to eat it (otherwise, Rebbi Shimon would indeed have done so).

(c)The Rabbanan (Amora'im) explained in front of Rav Sheishes that the Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Shimon, because they hold Isuro Chishuvo - a Petter Chamor does not require Machshavah, since the Isur renders it a food (because the fact that the Torah forbids it indicates that it is edible to Nochrim).

2)

(a)The Mishnah in Taharos lists thirteen things in connection with Nivlas Of Tahor, one of them, that it requires Machshavah (another that it does not require Hechsher). The problem with this is that - since the Torah forbids Nivlas Of Tahor, the Rabbanan ought to say there too Isuro Chishuvo, in which case it should not require Machshavah.

(b)The Mishnah in Uktzin says the same about the Neveilah of a Beheimah Temei'ah anywhere and Nivlas Of Tahor and (Cheilev [this does not appear in the Mishnah in Uktzin] in the villages. The Tana restricts the latter to villages, but not the former - because ...

1. ... whereas all Nochrim tend to consider the Neveilah of a Tamei animal disgusting, those who live in towns (who are generally more wealthy than those who live in villages), do eat Nivlas Of Tahor (which does not therefore require Machshavah to render it a food). Moreover ...

2. ... whereas the latter possesses only one prohibition for a Yisrael, the former possesses two.

(c)We have the same problem with the Rabbanan from this Mishnah as we just had with the previous one, both of which we solve - by establishing their author as Rebbi Shimon.

3)

(a)Another Mishnah in Uktzin rules that Nivlas Beheimah Tehorah and Nivlas Of ha'Tahor and Cheilev (Shechutah) in the market-places (in town) require neither Machshavah nor Hechsher. Hechsher is not required in ...

1. ... all the current cases of Neveilah - because whatever stands to be Metamei a stringent Tum'ah at some stage (to be Metamei Adam ve'Keilim) does not require Hechsher.

2. ... the case of Cheilev (Shechutah) - because the Shechitah (which rendered the animal a food), did the same for the Cheilev.

(b)This only applies in the market-place - where the people generally eat the Cheilev, but not in the villages, where they do not.

(c)The Neveilah of a Beheimah Tehorah does not require Machshavah (like that of a Beheimah Temei'ah does) - because a. as we explained earlier (regarding a Nivlas Of Tahor), it is not disgusting in the eyes of Nochrim (like Nivlas Beheimah Temei'ah), and b. there is only one prohibition as regards a Yisrael.

(d)Here again, we are faced with the same problem regarding Isuro Chishuvo, from the implication (that Nivlas Beheimah Temei'ah does require Machshavah). We cannot establish the author as Rebbi Shimon, like we did in the previous cases - because Rebbi Shimon speaks in the Seifa (implying that he is not the author of the Reisha).

4)

(a)Rebbi Shimon rules that the Neveilah of a camel, a hare, a rabbit and a pig - require neither Machshavah nor Hechsher ...

(b)... because they all have at least one Siman Taharah.

(c)We have now proved from the Reisha of this last Mishnah - that even the Rabbanan do not hold Isuro Chishuvo.

5)

(a)Rava therefore establishes the Rabbanan in the Beraisa (who list Pidyon Petter Chamor as a food) - where the owner Shechted the animal in order to practice Hilchos Shechitah (and that is what renders it a food [even without a Machshavah]).

(b)Rava needs to say that he Shechted it to practice Shechitah - because if he Shechted it S'tam, then even Rebbi Shimon would agree that it is a food.

(c)And the basis of their Machlokes is - whether a Shechitah that one performs in order to practice is considered a Shechitah (like one that is performed to prepare the animal for eating [the Rabbanan]) or not (Rebbi Shimon).

6)

(a)Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa, quoting Nimus (the brother of Rebbi Yehoshua ha'Garsi), rules that if someone Shechts a raven in order to practice Shechitah - the blood of the Shechitah is Machshir ...

(b)... the seeds on which it falls.

(c)Rebbi Elazar disagrees. He holds that the blood of Shechitah is always Machshir, by which he means - (not just the seeds, but) even the bird itself.

(d)We suggest that the basis of their Machlokes is - whether Isuro Choshvo (Rebbi Elazar) or not (Rebbi Yossi quoting Nimus).

7)

(a)We conclude however, that even Rebbi Elazar does not hold Isuro Chishuvo, and the reason that the Shechitah of the raven is Machshir it (even without Machshavah) is - because the raven has two Simnei Taharah ...

(b)... and we know that Simnei Taharah affect the status of the animal, because that is what Rebbi Shimon says in the Seifa of the Mishnah in Uktzin (as we learned earlier).

(c)If that is the reason, the problem with the case presented by the Beraisa is - why the Tana needs to present it as 'Shechting to practice'; why did he not rather present a case where he Shechted without meaning to do so (Lehis'asek, where he did not even intend to Shecht) to teach us that even such a Shechitah is Machshir?

(d)And we answer - that it is to teach us that according to Nimus, even a Shechitah that one performed intentionally is not Machshir.

(e)By citing this Beraisa, we have now proved that - according to Rava's interpretation of the Machlokes between the Rabbanan and Rebbi Shimon, which we discussed on the previous Amud, the Rabbanan hold like Nimus and Rebbi Shimon, like Rebbi Elazar.

8)

(a)Abaye queries this from a Beraisa, which discusses the Din of a Petter Chamor in the event that the owner refuses to redeem it. He is obligated - to cut its neck with a carving knife and bury it.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah adds 've'Asur be'Hana'ah'. Rebbi Shimon - says 'Mutar be'Hana'ah'.

(c)This Beraisa now poses a Kashya on Rabah - who said earlier that Rebbi Shimon concedes that after the donkey's neck is broken, it is Asur be'Hana'ah.

(d)So we amend the Beraisa to read - 'u'me'Chayim Asur be'Hana'ah ... Rebbi Shimon Matir'.

9)

(a)The problem with this explanation is from the Seifa, where the Tana forbids

1. ... killing the donkey with a cane, a spade or saw.

2. ... placing it in a locked room and letting it die by itself.

(b)And he cites Rebbi Yehudah, who forbids shearing it or working with it - Rebbi Shimon permits it.

(c)Assuming that they both speak whilst the donkey is still alive, we reconcile the Seifa with the Reisha - by establishing the Reisha by Hana'as Damav (the Seifa is in any event speaking about Hana'as ha'Guf) ...

(d)... meaning - for example that the owner rented it out.

(e)Having taught us the Machlokes in ...

1. ... the Reisha, the Tana needed to repeat it in the Seifa, to teach us that - Rebbi Shimon permits even Hana'as Damav.

2. ... the Seifa, he needed to repeat it in the Reisha, to teach us that - Rebbi Yehudah forbids even Hana'as Gufo.

10)

(a)Initially, Rav Nachman, quoting Rabah bar Avuhah, who agrees with Rabah, cites the source for is ruling ... as a Beraisa, where the Tana learns from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Arifah" "Arifah" from Eglah Arufah that - just as the latter is Asur be'Hana'ah after its death, so too, is the former.

(b)Rav Nachman tries to prove from there - that the author must be Rebbi Shimon - who permits the donkey be'Hana'ah during its lifetime and who therefore needs a Pasuk to teach us that it becomes Asur after it dies, just like Rabah said.

(c)Rav Sheishes rejects Rav Nachman's proof, by arguing that even according to Rebbi Yehudah, who already forbade the donkey whilst it was alive, the Tana would need to teach us that it remains Asur when it is dead - because we would otherwise have thought that breaking its neck replaces the redemption of the lamb, permitting the donkey be'Hana'ah just as the lamb would have done.

(d)So Rav Nachman tries to prove Rabah's ruling from a Beraisa learned by Levi, which ascribes the obligation of cutting the donkey's neck - to the fact that he caused the Kohen to lose (therefore he deserves to lose).

11)

(a)Rav Nachman tries to prove from there that the author must be Rebbi Shimon - because, according to Rebbi Yehudah, the donkey was already forbidden whilst it was alive, and he would not be losing anything after its death.

(b)We reconcile the Beraisa with ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah - by citing 'P'seida de'Beini Beini', which means that as long as the donkey's neck has not been broken, it can always be redeemed by a lamb, so that when it dies, the owner loses the balance (between the donkey and the lamb).

2. ... Rebbi Shimon, even if he permits the donkey be'Hana'ah after its death - because in any event, he will lose the balance between the live donkey and the dead one.

(c)Resh Lakish too, holds like Rabah and Rav Nachman. Rebbi Yochanan (or Rebbi Elazar) however, rules that - Rebbi Shimon argues after the donkey's death and permits it be'Hana'ah, just like he does during its lifetime.

12)

(a)Others cite Rav Nachman with regard to the Mishnah in Kidushin 'ha'Mekadesh be'Petter Chamor, Einah Mekudeshes'. We think that the author cannot be Rebbi Shimon - because he permits a Petter Chamor be'Hana'ah, so why should he not be able to betroth a woman with it?

(b)To refute this suggestion, Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah establishes the Mishnah - by a Petter Chamor whose neck has been broken, even according to Rebbi Shimon, who concedes that the donkey then becomes Asur, as we already explained.

(c)In the second Lashon, we ask that the Mishnah appears to go neither like Rebbi Shimon nor like Rebbi Yehudah - according to whom the donkey is at least worth to the owner (and to the woman) the balance between itself and the lamb with which it is redeemed.

(d)Rabah bar Avuhah Amar Rav therefore establishes the Mishnah in Kidushin (like Rebbi Yehudah this time) - where the donkey is worth only a Shekel (a Sela), which is the minimum value of the lamb with which it can be redeemed (as we will now see), in which case it is worth nothing.

13)

(a)Rav equates Rebbi Yehudah with Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa. The Tana Kama there learns from the word "Tifdeh" from the two times that the Torah writes in Bo and in Ki Sisa "u'Feter Chamor Tifdeh be'Seh" - a. "Tifdeh", Miyad; b. "Tifdeh", Kol she'Hu (that the owner may redeem it for a lamb immediately, and that the lamb need be worth no more than a Kol she'Hu).

(b)Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with the Tana Kama's second ruling. He requires the lamb to be worth at least a Shekel.

(c)If not for "Tifdeh" "Tifdeh", we would have learned from the Pasuk in Korach "es B'chor ha'Adam ve'es B'chor ha'Beheimah Tifdeh" that - like a B'chor Adam - a Petter Chamor can only be redeemed after thirty days and for not less than five Sela'im.

14)

(a)The problem we have with Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah's opinion is Mah Nafshach) - if he holds of the Hekesh to B'chor Adam, then the lamb ought to be worth at least five Shekalim (and not just one), and if he does not, then what is his source for one Shekel?

(b)We conclude that he does not learn from B'chor Adam. And the Din of one Shekel he learns - from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ve'Chol Erk'cha Yih'yeh be'Shekel ha'Kodesh", which refers to this Halachah.

(c)According to the Rabbanan, the Pasuk "ve'Chol Erk'cha ... " refers - to someone who declares 'Erki Alai', and does not have the money to pay his full Erech. He is assessed by the Kohen as to how much he is able to pay, and the Torah is teaching us here, that the Kohen may not assess him for less than one Shekel.

15)

(a)Rav Nachman rules like the Rabbanan, and according to Rav Yosef, this includes even a Petruza bar Danka - which means a particularly weak lamb that is worth only a Danka (a sixth of a Zuz).

(b)It is not at all obvious that - Kol she'Hu includes an animal that is worth quite so little or that is quite as weak as that.