Explanation: "Makolin" are Nochrim who buy meat from a butcher in order to profit from it. Rebbi is saying that we should not forbid buying meat today from other such Nochrim due to a suspicion that just as a Treifah was sold to this Makolin to sell even though they did not announce a Treifah, so too he sold Treifos to other Makolin. Alternatively, (on might think) we would say that just as this butcher sold a Treifah, so too other butchers sold Treifos today.

Explanation (cont.): There is no reason to suspect this, and therefore other Makolin are permitted since most butchers are Jews, besides for the Nochri from whom the purchase (of the Treifah) was made.

Implied Question: We do not suspect that the Nochri will bring some Neveilah from his house to sell in the Makolin.

Implied Question (cont.): Alternatively, it is possible that a butcher would sell a private Nochri who wants to eat meat one of his Treifos, not to sell in a shop. One cannot say that the Nochrim's shop should therefore be prohibited. (Why not? Why isn't this a reason to suspect he is selling nonkosher meat?)

Answer: This is because we consider meat in Makolin to have the status of most meat bought by Makolin, which is kosher meat sold to them by Jewish butchers.

Explanation: This means that we permit meat that is found to be in the hand of a Nochri, as we follow the status of most meat in the area. We do not suspect that he brought Neveilah from his house in order to sell it in the Makolin. Here, too, we should follow the status of most meat and not suspect other Makolin!

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara answers that the case there is different, as there is a status of prohibition. This means that there was a clear status of prohibited meat in the Makolin.

Explanation: This is even in a city where most of the butchers are Jew, as we suspect that ravens may have brought a carcass from a place where most of the meat is unkosher, and switched it with kosher meat. This is a mere stringency due to an incident that happened, as is stated later in the Gemara.

Explanation: This is because every case of Kavua is considered to be fifty-fifty.

Implied Question: We rule that according to Torah law, one in two is nullified. (Why, then, shouldn't this meat be considered nullified?)

Answer: This is only when it is mixed with permitted items, and the prohibited item is not identifiable. However, here the prohibited piece of meat is known when it is in the store, as is the location of the store that sells the Neveilah.

Answer (cont.): An important item is not nullified even if it is mixed with other permitted items, as we say that whatever is Kavua etc. as stated in Zevachim (73a) regarding a mixture of animals that they are considered important and are not nullified. The Gemara there asks, why don't we take and offer one of them and say that whatever is separated is separated from the majority (which is permitted)?

Answer (cont.): The Gemara answers, how can we take it?! It is Kavua, and every Kavua etc. The main reason is not due to Kavua, but rather because animals are not nullified, just like something that is normally counted.

Question: In a place where they announce Treifos and they indeed announced a Treifah, we forbid all of the Makolin of Nochrim due to one Treifah, and we do not say to follow the Rov that most meat is from the Jewish butchers and therefore all of the meat in the Makolin is kosher. Similarly, in a place where they do not announce Treifos, we do not say that one follows the Rov that most meat sold in Makolin is kosher. (Why not?)

Answer: It is possible that this is because the Makolin are considered Kavua.

Question: However, this (that Makolin should be different as they are Kavua) is difficult. Meat that is found in the hands of a Nochri when it is not in a Makolin is forbidden on a day when they announced a Treifah. We do not say that you should follow the Rov, even though our Gemara permits meat that is found in the hands of a Nochri!

Question (cont.): It is logical that when Rebbi said earlier that meat found in the hands of a Nochri where there are Makolin and Jewish butchers is permitted, he meant this is only in a place where they announce Treifos but they did not announce this one. However, if they did announce it, it is forbidden even though it says, "it was found" implying that this was not in a Makolin.

Question (cont.): Additionally, we forbid buying from a Nochri in a Makolin in a place where they do not announce Treifos even if most butchers in the area are Jewish, as we suspect that a Jewish butcher will have a Treifah. We do not follow the Rov that most animals are kosher.

Question (cont.): This is despite the fact that the Gemara later (95b) permits liver and kidneys thrown down by ravens on Erev Yom Kippur because kosher meat is more commonly found in that area. We do not suspect that they are Treifos, as Rashi explains there, because most animals are not Treifos.

Answer: It appears that it is a Rabbinic decree that in a place where they do not announce Treifos one should not purchase meat from Nochrim Lechatchilah, even though most butchers in the area are Jewish.

Answer (cont.): Similarly (one should not buy meat from a Nochri) in a place where they do announce Treifos and they announced a Treifah on that day.

Proof: This is similar to the Gemara in Nidah (71b) that says that if a person owned clothing in which a thread of Shatnez was lost (i.e. he does not know where this sewn Shatnez is within the article of clothing), he should not sell it to a Nochri as he might sell it to a Jew (who will not be able to tell it is Shatnez). This is despite the fact that according to the letter of the law he should not have to suspect this, being that we should follow the Rov.

Question: The Gemara in Pesachim (9b, see Tosfos there DH "d'Haynu") says that if there are nine piles of Matzah and one of Chametz, and a mouse came and took a piece (from one of them etc.), this is the same case as the nine stores where the doubt is forbidden.

Question (cont.): If a piece from one of these piles was separated from the pile it was in, and a mouse then took it, this is the second case (where it is permitted).

Question (cont.): Now, even if the mouse took a piece from the pile it should be permitted, just as we say here that we permit meat that was found in the hands of a Nochri! What is the difference if it is found in the mouth of a mouse or in the hands of a Nochri? We should decide based on Rov!

Answer: The case there is where we see the mouse took from the pile, and therefore the doubt occurred in the area where it is called Kavua.

Question: In Zevachim (73b) the Gemara asks, "We should force them to move around, in order that we can say that (any animal taken from this now scattered herd) anything that separates is considered to have separated from the majority!"

Question (cont.): Why is this a question? Since we see that at the time that the doubt occurred and it separated it was from the place that was Kavua, it is considered fifty-fifty!

Answer: The Gemara's question there is that we should make them scatter in a way that we will not see the animal become separated from the rest of the herd.

Question #1: The Gemara there answers that this is due to a decree that perhaps one will end up taking from the Kavua animals. Why don't we similarly forbid meat found in the hands of a Nochri due a decree that he might have taken it when it was Kavua?

Answer: You might say that the case where the animal separates by himself from the herd, it is permitted. It would only be prohibited Lechatchilah to cause the animal to separate itself from the herd due to a decree that a person might end up taking an animal from a Kavua place.

Question: If you will say this, why should the animals have to graze until they receive a blemish? Once they are grazing and they separate themselves from the herd, they should automatically be considered permitted as they did separated on their own!

Question #2: Furthermore, the Gemara (ibid.) says that a cup of idolatry that fell into a storehouse full of cups forbids all of them. If one of them was separated from this bunch of cups and became mixed in with ten thousand cups, and one of these cups was taken out and then mixed with another ten thousand cups, they are permitted.

Question #2 (cont.): Why should it have to be mixed with ten thousand cups? Once it separates it is permitted, as it separates from the majority! Rather, this implies that it is forbidden due to a decree that he might take from it when it is Kavua.

Question #2 (cont.): There is no reason to differentiate between Kodshim and idolatry and other prohibitions.

Answer: In our Gemara, it is not possible to decree that a person might take from a place that is Kavua, since the prohibited item is known to be prohibited in its place, and the store selling this Neveilah is known in its place and is not mixed among other stores.

Answer (cont.): However, when the prohibited item is mixed with other things, if we permit it when it separates he will come to purchase from Kavua. It is only permitted there when the prohibited item is mixed with permitted items.

Opinion #1: Rabeinu Tam permitted the sheep of a herd when a wolf entered it and trampled two or three sheep (which later became mixed up with the rest of the herd) due to the rule that every sheep is considered to have separated from the Rov.

Opinion #2: This does not seem correct. Rather, the item separated from the Rov is permitted only when the prohibited item is known beforehand, as I have explained.

Explanation: If he would have only pulled out one, he would not have forbade it, as he saw that there were no ravens around (that may have dropped it). He had no reason to suspect that perhaps his became lost in the water and this was a different one.

Explanation (cont.): However, now that he found two we forbid them even though most butchers in the area are Jewish, as we suspect that a raven brought the second one from somewhere else in the world (most butchers in the rest of the world are Nochrim).

Explanation (cont.): This is what he means when he says that it is more common to find prohibited meat. This means that in far away places from where ravens can bring meat, it is more common that the meat will be non kosher meat.

Implied Question: Later, Rav Kahana permitted liver and kidneys that ravens brought and threw down as Jewish butchers were more common. (What is the difference between our case and this case?)

Answer: In that case, in all of the surrounding area that ravens would bring meat from there was a majority of Jewish butchers.

Implied Question: He could not deduce from here that Rav holds that Basar she'Nisalem Min ha'Ayin is prohibited.

Answer: This is because it is possible that most butchers in that area were Nochrim.

Question: How could Eliezer have done Nichush according to the opinion in Sanhedrin (56b) that whatever is stated in the Torah regarding witchcraft (and things similar to it) also apply to Noahides?

Answer: The Tana in Sanhedrin (ibid.) holds that he did not give her the bracelets until she told him whose daughter she was.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Torah states (Bereishis 24:22), "And the man took a nose ring of gold etc." and it then states, "And he said, whose daughter are you?" (This implies he gave her the jewelry before asking who her father was!)

Answer: There is not necessarily chronological order in the Pesukim of the Torah. This is also apparent from when Eliezer said, "And I asked her and said, whose daughter are you (and only then gave her the jewelry)" (Bereishis 24:47).

Question: How could Yonasan have done Nichush? (It is a Torah prohibition!)

Answer: Yonasan only gave this sign in order to make his bearer of arms more eager to go. Even without this sign he would have fought the Plishtim.

Text: Rabeinu Chananel's text here is "Gevili," meaning twelve parchment containing questions.

Observation: This implies that pieces of meat are not normally strung together on a string.

Question: The Tosefta [Bava Metzia ch. 2] says, "If he found a string of fish or meat, they are his." (This shows it is not a unique Siman to string pieces of meat together!)

Answer: Here (regarding Basar she'Nisalem Min ha'Ayin) they relied even on a small Siman.