1)

(a)Our Mishnah considers anyone who is eligible ...

1. ... to judge - eligible to testify.

2. ... to testify - not necessarily eligible to judge.

(b)The Seifa refers - to a person who is blind in one eye, who is eligible to testify but not to judge.

2)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan establishes the author of our Mishnah as Rebbi Meir, who learns in a Beraisa (based on the Pasuk in Shoftim [in connection with the Kohanim']) "ve'Al Pihem Yih'yeh Kol Riv ve'Chol Nega" - that we compare Rivim (judgement) to Nega'im (the inspection of Nega'im), and vice-versa.

(b)He compares Rivim to Nega'im in two regards. One of them, in that they too, must be performed by day (which he learns by Nega'im from the Pasuk "u've'Yom Hera'os bo"). And he learns from the Pasuk "le'Chol Mar'eh Einei ha'Kohen" - that Rivim, like Nega'im, cannot be performed by a person who is blind (even in one eye).

(c)And he compares Nega'im to Rivim in that relatives are disqualified from inspecting someone who has a Mark of Tzara'as (just as they are disqualified from Rivim [as we learn from the Pasuk in ki Seitzei "Lo Yumsu Avos al Banim"]). He also learns from the Pasuk "ve'Huva el Aharon ha'Kohen O el Achad mi'Banav ha'Kohanim" - that even though Rivim requires three Dayanim, Nega'im requires only one.

(d)We would otherwise have learned - from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from Rivim, which require three even though they only concerns one's property, how much more so Nega'im, which concern one's body.

3)

(a)A certain man who lived in the vicinity of Rebbi Yochanan and who was blind in one eye - used to judge.

(b)What is strange about this, particularly bearing in mind that he lived in the vicinity of Rebbi Yochanan - is the fact that Rebbi Yochanan himself, based on our Mishnah, which he established like Rebbi Meir, just forbade it.

(c)We answer by citing another S'tam Mishnah in Sanhedrin which permits Dinei Mamonos to be concluded at night - which proves that thatTana does not agree with the Hekesh comparing Rivim to Nega'im (so presumably, he does agree with it regarding a blind man either).

(d)We give two reasons for Rebbi Yochanan giving preference to the Mishnah in Sanhedrin over our Mishnah. One of them is the fact that it goes like the Chachamim (whereas the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Meir, as we learned earlier). The other reason is - the fact that Sanhedrin is the venue that deals directly with these issues, in which case a S'tam Mishnah there carries more weight than a S'tam Mishnah here (which only cites this ruling incidentally).

4)

(a)Our Mishnah declares whatever is Chayav Ma'asros to be Metamei Tum'as Ochlin - because if is food regarding one, then it is food for the other.

(b)But not the reverse, the Tana concludes - with reference to meat, fish and eggs, which are food on the one hand, but do not grow from the ground on the other (which is of course, the criterion for Ma'asros).

5)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that whatever is Chayav Pe'ah is Chayav Ma'asros. He concludes however, that whatever is Chayav Ma'asros - is not necessarily Chayav Pe'ah.

(b)Based on a Mishnah in Pe'ah, we establish the Seifa of our Mishnah with regard to figs and vegetables. The Tana there precludes from Pe'ah ...

1. ... figs - because they are not picked all at once ('Lekitaso ke'Achas' [since they do not grow all at once]).

2. ... vegetables - because they are not placed in storage ('Lekitaso ke'Achas' [though that may not be the case nowadays]).

(c)Besides the above two conditions, plus the fact that only food is subject to Pe'ah, the other two specifications that the Tana learns from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "u've'Kutzrechem es K'tzir Artzechem, Lo Sechaleh Pe'as Sadcha" are - that they must grow from the ground and that they must be guarded.

(d)The Mishnah precludes from the Chiyuv of Pe'ah ...

1. ... K'rug and Sitis (wild safflower and goad (two kinds of dye) respectively - because they are not food (see Tosfos DH 'S'fichei Sitis')

2. ... crops that the owner declared Hefker - because they are not guarded.

3. ... mushrooms - because they do not grow from the ground (i.e. they are not sustained from the ground, but from the air).

6)

(a)The Mishnah in Ma'asros (which presents a similar list to that of Pe'ah) omits - 'Lekitaso ke'Achas' and 'Machniso le'Kiyum' (which is why figs and vegetables respectively, are subject to Ma'asros).

(b)The fact that figs and vegetables are subject to Ma'aser must be mi'de'Rabbanan - since min ha'Torah, only Dagan, Tirosh and Yitzhar (corn, wine and oil) are Chayav.

(c)The Beraisa rules - that garlic and onions that are growing in a field of vegetables are Chayav Pe'ah.

(d)The source for this is a Mishnah in Pe'ah, which discusses rows of onions that are growing in a field of vegetables. Rebbi Yossi requires the owner to leave Pe'ah from each row independently - because in his opinion, the rows of vegetables are considered a Hefsek (a break) between the rows of onions (rendering each row of onions a separate field.

(e)The Chachamim hold - that only one Pe'ah is necessary (because they do not consider the rows of vegetables a Hefsek).

7)

(a)Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan states that 'Ulshin' (a kind of bitter herb [andives according to some]) that one initially planted as animal fodder, but subsequently changed one's mind to use for humans - requires another Machshavah after it is picked before it will be subject to Tum'as Ochlin (even if he already had the Machshavah whilst it was still attached) ...

(b)... because a Machshavah that one thinks whilst a potential food is still attached is not considered a Machshavah.

(c)Rava supports this with a Mishnah in Taharos, which lists thirteen things that were said regarding Nivlas Of Tahor, one of them that it requires Machshavah but not Hechsher. The Machshavah achieves - that the piece of Neveilah is automatically Tamei and renders food that touches it Tamei ...

(d)... otherwise, it would only render the person who eats it Tamei (a Tum'ah Chamurah, as we shall see shortly).

8)

(a)When the Tana says that Nivlas Of Tahor does not require Hechsher, he means - that it does not need any sort of Hechsher to render it Tamei, neither contact with water nor contact with an Av ha'Tum'ah (because the Machshavah alone renders it Tamei).

(b)On the assumption that the owner probably had in mind to eat it whilst it was still alive, Rava now proves from there - that a Machshavah at a time when it cannot be eaten is not considered a Machshavah (see Tosfos DH 'Machsheves Chayim'), and the same will apply to a Machshavah on crops whilst they are still attached (like Rebbi Yochanan said).

(c)Rebbi Zeira refutes Rava's proof by establishing it by a young bird that dropped dead from the sky - and which he therefore had no chance to think of eating whilst it was still alive (because if he had, it would have sufficed to render the bird Tamei once it died).

(d)Abaye queried Rebbi Zeira however, from a case later, regarding hen in Yavneh where Kutim had in mind to eat it whilst it was still alive (which is how we will establish the case there [a proof that Machshavah me'Chayim does not help]). Rebbi Zeira countered Abaye's Kashya - by establishing it by a Tarn'gol B'ra (a specific species of wild hen, where again there could have been no chance of Machshavah me'Chayim).

9)

(a)All those present laughed at Rebbi Zeira - since a wild hen is a Tamei species of bird, which is not subject to Tum'ah be'Veis ha'Beli'ah (which is what the Mishnah is talking about, as will be explained later).

(b)Abaye told them - that when a great man says something, one does not laugh (but rather exerts oneself to try and understand what he meant.

(c)He therefore interpreted the 'Tarnegol B'ra' of Rebbi Zeira with reference to - a Tahor bird that ran away (and 'B'ra' means 'away from its owner' before falling from the sky' [which explains why there could not have been a Machshavah me'Chayim).

10)

(a)When Rav Papa established the case currently under discussion by a Tarnegolta de'Agma (a species of wild hen that is Kasher), he was following his own reasoning. Elsewhere he states - that whereas a Tarnegolta de'Agma is Kasher, a Tarnegol de'Agma is not (see Tosfos DH 'Tarnegolta de'Agma').

(b)The Si'man to remember which is which (based on the fact that the former is a female, and the latter, a male) is - "Amoni", 've'Lo Amonis' (which refers to the ruling which renders a male Ger Amoni Pasul from marrying a Yisre'eilis, but not a Ger Amonis from marrying a Yisrael.

(c)Mereimar Darshened - that a Tarnegolta de'Agma is forbidden, because they actually saw it being Doreis and eating (something which only a non-Kasher bird does).

(d)'Doreis' means - either catching its prey with its feet or holding it down with its claws whilst it eats it (to prevent the entire bird from entering its mouth) ...

(e)... in fact he said, Tarnegolta de'Agma is none other than the 'Gerusa', a known species of Tamei bird.

11)

(a)The Beraisa discusses a case where a bird fell into a wine-press and died, and someone had the intention of removing it. The Tana Kama draws a distinction between whether he had in mind to feed it to a Nochri - in which case it is Tamei, or to a dog - in which case it is Tahor.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri holds that either way it is Tamei - because he does not require a Machshavah.

(c)And he bases his opinion on a 'Kal va'Chomer' - because if Tum'ah Chamurah (Nivlas Of Tamei) does not require Machshavah, then Tum'ah Kalah (Tum'as Ochlin) certainly ought not to.

(d)He refers to Nivlas Of Tahor as a strict Tum'ah - because it renders a person Tamei to be Metamei the clothes he is wearing (which Tum'as Ochlin does not).

12)

(a)The Rabbanan answer that Tum'ah Chamurah is not destined to require Machshavah (which will be explained later), whereas Tum'ah Kalah is. When Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri queried them from the case of Tarnegoles she'be'Yavneh which, he claimed, the Chachamim declared Tamei even though there was no Machshavah, they replied - that in fact, there were Kutim there who did have in mind to use it as food.

(b)The case of the bird that fell into a winepress cannot be speaking about a bird in a city, since the Mishnah in Uktzin rules that Nivlas Beheimah Tehorah even in a village and Nivlas Of Tahor as well as Cheilev in a town - do not require Machshavah ...

(c)... since everyone (i.e. Nochrim) eats the former, whereas the latter are eaten in a city, where there are a lot of people to feed, and not so much food is available.

(d)The problem in establishing it by a village is - that the Tana there does require Machshavah in a village (since there are not so many people, and not everybody there eats them (so on what grounds does Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri argue in the Beraisa).

13)

(a)We therefore establish it where the bird fell into a wine-press in a city. Rebbi Ze'ira bar Chin'na justifies the need for Machshavah (according to the Chachamim), despite the Mishnah in Uktzin - by pointing out that the bird had become repulsive after falling into the wine-press and most people would not have dreamed of eating it.