Question: A woman is Kosher to judge, like it says about Devorah "v'Hi Shoftah Es Yisrael ba'Es ha'Hi";

In Bava Kama (15a), we expound "Asher Tasim Lifneihem" - the verse equates a woman to a man for all punishments in the Torah;

Just like the verse discusses people who are judged, it discusses also judges, like we expound in Gitin (88b) "Lifneihem", and not in front of Nochri [judges].

A woman is Pasul for testimony, like it says in Shevuos (30a)!

Answer #1: The Mishnah means that any man Kosher to judge is Kosher to testify.

Answer #2: Granted, regarding people who are judged, a woman is included. In any case, a woman is not included among [Kosher] judges;

Devorah judged Al Pi ha'Dibur. (These words connote that Hash-m authorized her to do so; it was a Hora'as Sha'ah. Elsewhere, Tosfos says that the litigants accepted her to be a judge, because she was a Nevi'ah - Rashash, Aruch l'Ner.)

Alternatively, she did not judge, rather, she taught them the laws.

Support: The Yerushalmi disqualifies a woman for judging. Some learn "Al Pi Shenayim Edim" from "v'Amdu Shenei ha'Anashim", and some learn from "v'Yish'aru Shenei Anashim ba'Machaneh" (only men may be chosen for the Sanhedrin. Really, this is the source that women may not testify. Tosfos cites the Yerushalmi, for it concludes that all the more so, women may not judge - Maharam.)

Question: Why do we say that it comes to include a blind person, and our Mishnah argues with the Stam Mishnah in Sanhedrin (32a)?

We should say that it comes to include one who loves or hates [the litigants]. They are Kosher to testify and Pasul to judge, like it says in Sanhedrin (27b) according to Rabanan who argue with R. Yehudah!

Answer #1: This is not uniformly true, for [one who loves or hates] is Kosher to judge everyone else.

Answer #2: You cannot establish our Mishnah like Rabanan, for it taught that whoever is Kosher to judge is Kosher to testify, and one who is blind in both eyes is Kosher to judge according to Rabanan, for they do not equate monetary cases to Nega'im;

He is Pasul for testimony, from "Oh Ro'oh";

Even for what he saw before he became blind, he is Pasul for testimony, like it says in Bava Basra (128a) "if one knew testimony for him before he became blind, and he became blind, he is Pasul.

Question: In Bava Basra (43a, we say that if the Sefer Torah of a city was stolen, people of the city cannot judge or testify about it, for it affects them.) We ask two should forfeit their shares in it and judge the case;

In the case in Bava Basra (128a) that I brought, we disqualify when initially he was Pasul and at the end he is Kosher!

Suggestion: (That refers to testimony.) For judging, we are Machshir more.

Rebuttal (Mishnah): Anyone Kosher to judge is Kosher to testify.

Answer: (The suggestion is correct.) Our Mishnah discusses the future. Anyone Kosher to judge in the future is Kosher to testify about what he will see from now and onwards.

Question: We say in Chulin (6a that one who gives to his neighbor a dough to bake or a pot to cook), he need not be concerned about sourdough or spices [that were added] in it, not regarding Ma'aser and not regarding Shemitah;

Inference: This connotes that Ma'aser applies to spices. If so, they receive Tum'as Ochlim;

In Chulin (117b), a Mishnah says that Kipah joins for Tum'as Ochlim. The Gemara (120a) asks what Kipah is, and answers that it is spices!

Inference: Spices have Tum'as Ochlim only through joining (but not by themselves)!

Answer #1: There are two kinds of spices. Those that are only for [adding] taste do not receive Tum'as Ochlim, and they are not liable in Ma'aser;

However, spices proper to be eaten by themselves, and they are used also for taste, such as garlics and onions, are obligated in Ma'aser and have Tum'as Ochlim.

Answer #2: The Gemara in Chulin (6a) teaches li'Tzedadin (not everything said applies to every case). "Ma'aser" does not refer to spices (they are always exempt), rather, only to sourdough;

Shevi'is applies even to spices. It applies even to animal food, like the Mishnah in Shevi'is (7:1) teaches.

Question (R"Sh of Toyil): Below (51b), we say that they voted and concluded that peppers do not receive Tum'as Ochlim;

In Eruvin (28b), it says "what is Gargir [a kind of mustard] seed useful for?", and answers that earlier generations, who did not have peppers, would grind it and dip roasted meat in it;

All the more so Ma'aser applies to it for this reason!

Answer: Gargir seeds, when they grind it in order to dip in it, it is proper to eat by itself. However, it is not common to grind it in order to eat it without dipping, since it is better through dipping;

However, peppers, after they are diced, they are not proper to eat by themselves, only through dipping.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It explicitly mentioned Sefichim (things that were not intentionally planted. Rather, they grew automatically, e.g. from seeds that were dropped), for initial (intentionally planted) Stim is proper to eat,

Explanation #2: Sefichim are more proper. One might have thought that Pe'ah applies to them. The Gemara teaches that this is not so.

Citation (Berachos 40b) Question: The Mishnah says that if he said "all Gidulei Karka are Konam (forbidden like a Korban) to me", he is forbidden mushrooms and truffles;

Citation (cont.) Answer: They increase due to the ground, but they do not nurture from the ground;

[The Gemara asks] "the Mishnah says 'anything that does not grow from the ground'!", and answers that it should say "and anything that does not nurture from the ground."

Consequence: If so, also in our Sugya it must teach "nurture from the ground."

Question: Why are figs and Yerek obligated in Ma'aser and exempt from Pe'ah?

Mid'Oraisa, Pe'ah and Ma'aser apply only to grain, wine and oil. Why did Chachamim obligate Ma'aser more than Pe'ah?

Answer (R. Tam): A fig tree is not harvested at once. Therefore, they did not decree Pe'ah on it, lest Aniyim wait until the Ba'al ha'Bayis finishes his harvest, and lose more [from what they could have profited] elsewhere than what they will gain through this Pe'ah.

Also Yerek, the Pe'ah is not important, and it is worth only a little, and if they will wait for it until the evening, they will lose more than they gain.

Inference: Stam, they are for people, or for both of them (people and animals), and even so, when he planted for an animal, it lost the status of food.

Implied question - Citation (Kerisus 21a): Anything special for human consumption is Tamei (Mekabel Tum'ah) until it is so spoiled that a dog would not eat it!

Answer: Since he planted them for an animal, it is not called a food, and this growth was never for man.

Implied question: It says in Chulin (128a) that if one picked endives (a bitter species that may be used for Maror) and rinsed them for an animal, and reconsidered to use them for people, they need a second Hechsher. (Food is not Mekabel Tum'ah until one of the seven liquids is put on it, and the owner is pleased. The first rinsing was not Machshir, for at the time he intended for animals.)

Since Stam they are for people, just because he rinsed them for an animal, it should not lose the status of food until it is so spoiled that a dog would not eat it! Why was it not Huchshar?

Answer #1: The case is, initially, they were special for animals.

Answer #2: Perhaps Hechsher does not help even for food for people, if the Hechsher is for the sake of an animal.

Explanation: In its lifetime, he intended to eat it only after Shechitah, and it died [without Shechitah];

However, if it were considered intent, it would not lose the status of food, through becoming Neveilah, until it is so spoiled that a dog would not eat it.

Explanation: The male is forbidden because it does not have Simanei Taharah.

Implied question: It should be permitted, for "whatever comes from a Tahor [species] is Tahor"!

Answer: [This does not apply here,] for the mother did not gave birth to the chick. Rather, it laid eggs, and the chick grew from earth, and it is automatically forbidden due to its Simanim of Tum'ah.

Implied question: We should forbid the female, according to the opinion that forbids Zeh v'Zeh Gorem (something that results from two (or more) causes, one of which is forbidden. Here, the father was forbidden!)

Answer: The chick came only from the egg, and it grew from earth, like I explained.

Retraction: It seems that they are two species. The one called "swamp hen", males and females are permitted, for they have Simanei Taharah. The one called "swamp rooster", males and females are forbidden.

Source #1: It is unreasonable that in one species, the male and female have different laws.

Source #2: Since they are not among the Tamei species written [in the Torah], for in every such species, there is male and female...

We should not forbid due to Simanei Tum'ah [that Chachamim gave for birds] until it has all four Simanim, for we learn from a Nesher (eagle or vulture. Any bird not listed among the Tamei species, that lacks one of these Simanim, is Tahor - Chulin 61a).

Question: You are forced to say that R. Yochanan ben Nuri does not require intent even in villages, since he made a Kal va'Chomer [that applies everywhere]. If so, what was the question?

Answer: It means that as follows. Rather, [we must say that it was] in villages. Do we ever find [that it does not need intent in villages?....] If so, even if it did not fall into the winepress, according to Rabanan it needs intent!

Implied question: The Makshan was aware that we discuss when it fell into the winepress! (Why was it obvious to him that in cities, it does not need intent?)

Answer: In any case, he asked initially "if you will say that it was in cities..." because he held that due to falling into the winepress, it does not become so repulsive, to the point that it becomes like a village, until R. Zeira answered [that it does].

Explanation, and rhetorical question: [The text does not mention] Chelev regarding villages. What kind of Chelev [would require intent in villages]?

Suggestion: It is of a Tahor [Neveilah] animal. It requires intent in villages, because it is not normal to eat Chelev.

Rejection: If so, why doesn't it need Hechsher? Chelev of a Neveilah of a Tahor animal is not destined to have severe Tum'ah!

We learn this in Pesachim (23a) from "Chelev Neveilah v'Chelev Tereifah Ye'aseh l'Chol Melachah"!

Suggestion: It is of a slaughtered animal.

Rejection: Blood of Shechitah is not Machshir, since we say that it requires intent, and it is not yet considered a food until he has intent;

Hechsher does not help until it is considered a food, like it says in Chulin (128a) regarding endives rinsed for an animal.

Obviously, Chelev of a Tamei animal requires intent. Why should it be different than its meat?!

Conclusion: The text says so [that Chelev requires intent] regarding cities. We discuss Chelev of a slaughtered animal;

Since it does not require intent, it is a food, and blood of Shechitah is Machshir it.