1)
(a)Abaye suggests that whether a Nefel is considered dead or not a Machlokes Tana'im. What does the Tana Kama in a Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Shemini (in connection with Shechitah) "ve'Chi Yamus min ha'Beheimah Asher Hi Lachem le'Ochlah"?
(b)What do Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon say?
(c)Based on the previous Sugya, how does Abaye attempt to explain the Machlokes?
(d)On what grounds does Rava reject Abaye's suggestion?
1)
(a)Abaye suggests that whether a Nefel is considered dead or not a Machlokes Tana'im. The Tana Kama in a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk (in connection with Shechitah) "ve'Chi Yamus min ha'Behemah Asher Hi Lachem le'Ochlah" - that the Shechitah of an eighth-month baby does not render it Tahor from Tum'as Neveilah.
(b)According to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - it does.
(c)Based on the previous Sugya, Abaye suggests - that the Machlokes is whether an eighth month baby is bound to die (the Tana Kama [like Rav Ada bar Ahavah]) or whether it can survive (Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon).
(d)Rava rejects Abaye's suggestion - on the grounds that, if that were so, they ought rather to have argued over whether one is permitted to eat it or not.
2)
(a)According to Rava then, how will both opinions hold regarding whether a Nefel is considered dead or not?
(b)And how will he explain the basis of their Machlokes?
(c)Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon compare an eighth-month baby to a T'reifah. On what grounds does the Tana Kama disagree with Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah ... ?
(d)Why can we not at least compare it to a Tereifah from birth (whose Shechitah also renders it Tahor)?
2)
(a)According to Rava therefore, both opinions will hold - that a Nefel cannot survive.
(b)And he explains the basis of their Machlokes as being - whether it is considered a Tereifah (Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon [which cannot live, but whose Shechitah renders it Tahor]) or a Neveilah (the Tana Kama).
(c)The Tana Kama disagrees with Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah ... - because whereas a Tereifah was previously permitted, a Nefel was not.
(d)Neither can we compare it to a Tereifah from birth (whose Shechitah also renders it Tahor) - since it at least, belongs to a species which was initially Kasher, where a Nefel was not.
3)
(a)We ask whether the Rabbanan disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel or not. What are the ramifications of this She'eilah?
(b)Assuming that they do, what second She'eilah do we ask?
(c)We try to resolve the first She'eilah from a Beraisa which discusses a calf that is born on Yom-Tov. What does the Tana rule ...
1. ... in such a case? When is one permitted to Shecht it?
2. ... in a case where a firstborn animal is born together with its blemish on Yom-Tov?
(d)How do we reject both proofs that the Rabbanan argue with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? Why might even the latter agree that there is no problem in Shechting an animal and eating it on the day that it is born?
(e)How do we finally resolve both She'eilos from a statement of Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel? What did he say?
3)
(a)We ask whether the Rabbanan disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel or not - in which case one will be permitted to Shecht and eat an animal on the day that it is born.
(b)Assuming that they do, we ask whether the Halachah is like him or not.
(c)We try to resolve the first She'eilah from a Beraisa which discusses a calf that is born on Yom-Tov, and where the Tana ...
1. ... allows it to be Shechted the day it is born
2. ... permits a firstborn animal that is born together with its blemish on Yom-Tov - to be Shechted and eaten, because it is Muchan (prepared [and therefore not Muktzeh]).
(d)We reject both proofs that the Rabbanan argue with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel however - by establishing that even according to him, there is no problem in Shechting an animal that is born on the first day it is born and eating it as long as we know for sure that it is not an eighth month baby.
(e)We finally resolve both She'eilos from a statement of Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, who said - that the Halachah is like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, implying that the Rabbanan argue with him.
4)
(a)What does Abaye say (regarding the Machlokes between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbanan) about a case where a newborn baby falls off a roof and dies, or is eaten by a lion?
(b)In which case do they then argue?
(c)What are the ramifications of their Machlokes, seeing as either way, the baby has now died?
4)
(a)According to Abaye - even Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel will agree that a newborn baby who falls off a roof and dies, or is eaten by a lion is not a Safek Nefel, but a Chai ...
(b)... and they argue - over where he yawned and expired (showing virtually no sign of life) ...
(c)... in which case - he will exempt his mother from Yibum (even though the baby subsequently died), according to the Chachamim, but not according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel
5)
(a)We reject Abaye's explanation of the Machlokes however, on the basis of a visit that Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Idi. What did they comment when he served them a third calf that he had Shechted on the seventh day after its birth?
(b)When would the animal have become permitted had it been a question of bringing it as a Korban?
(c)What does this prove?
(d)How do we therefore amend Abaye's statement to read?
5)
(a)We reject Abaye's explanation of the Machlokes however, on the basis of a visit that Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua paid to Rava Brei de'Rav Idi. When he served them a third calf that he had Shechted on the seventh day after its birth - they commented that, had he waited until nightfall, they would gladly have eaten from it, but that unfortunately, this was now not possible.
(b)Had it been a question of bringing it as a Korban - the animal would only have become permitted on the eighth day, when it was eligible to be brought as a Korban.
(c)We have here a proof - that according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, even a healthy animal is a Safek Nefel until the eighth day.
(d)We therefore amend Abaye's statement to read - that the Tana'im argue in a case where the animal is healthy, but if it yawned and expired, then even the Rabbanan agree that it is a Nefel.
6)
(a)What did Rav Dimi bar Yosef's son do when his son died within thirty days of birth?
(b)What comment did his father make to him?
(c)What was his response? How did he justify his actions?
(d)And what did Rav Kahana reply when Rav Ashi asked why he sat Shiv'ah for his son, who died within thirty days of birth, seeing as the Halachah is like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel?
6)
(a)When Rav Dimi bar Yosef's son died within thirty days of birth - he sat Shiv'ah for him ...
(b)... at which his father asked him whether he wanted to eat the fine food that they used to feed an Avel, seeing as, according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, every Safek Shemini, Safek Teshi'i, is a Safek Nefel, and is not therefore subject to Avelus ...
(c)... to which he replied - that he knew for certain that baby was a ninth-month baby, and was not a Safek.
(d)When Rav Ashi asked Rav Kahana reply why (seeing as the Halachah is like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel he sat Shiv'ah for his son, who died within thirty days of birth), he gave the same answer as Rav Dimi bar Yosef's son.
136b----------------------------------------136b
7)
(a)We now discuss a case where the mother of a baby who died within thirty days became betrothed. What is the problem? What exactly is the case?
(b)What distinction did Ravina in the name of Rava, draw between where her current husband is a Yisrael, and where he is a Kohen?
(c)What did Rav Sheravya ...
1. ... say?
2. ... retort, when Ravina told him that Rava had said what he (Rav Sheravya) quoted him as saying in the evening, but the following morning he retracted, saying like he had quoted him as saying?
7)
(a)We now discuss a case where the mother of a baby who died within thirty days became betrothed. The problem - is there where her husband died before the baby was born. Now if the baby was alive, she was Patur from Yibum and her betrothal was legal; whereas if it was not, then she was a Yevamah, who had no right to become engaged and who, in any event, now required Chalitzah in order to permit her to remain with her Chasan.
(b)Ravina in the name of Rava ruled - that she would require Chalitzah if her betrothed was a Yisrael (in which case she would be permitted to marry him); but would exempt her in the event that he was a Kohen (who is forbidden to live with a Chalutzah [see Tosfos DH 've'Im Eishes Kohen']).
(c)Rav Sheravya ...
1. ... required her to perform Chalitzah either way.
2. ... commented, when Ravina told him that Rava had said what he (Rav Sheravya) quoted him as saying in the evening, but the following morning he retracted, saying like he had quoted him as saying - he retorted 'You permitted her? May it be Hash-m's will that you also permit Chelev!'
8)
(a)What did Rav Shizbi Amar Rav Chisda say in connection with Rebbi Yehudah's ruling in our Mishnah, which considers an Androginus a Zachar with regard to circumcising him on the eighth day?
(b)In the Beraisa cited by Rav Shizbi, what does Rebbi Yehudah learn from the Pasuk in Bechukosai (in connection with Erchin) ...
1. ... "ha'Zachar (see Tosfos)"?
2. ... "ve'*Im* Nekeivah Hi"?
(c)How do we know that the author of this Beraisa (whose name is not mentioned) is Rebbi Yehudah?
8)
(a)Rav Shizbi Amar Rav Chisda stated (in connection with Rebbi Yehudah's ruling in our Mishnah, which considers an Androginus a Zachar with regard to circumcising him on the eighth day) - that it was not everywhere that Rebbi Yehudah considers an Androginus to be a Vaday Zachar.
(b)In the Beraisa cited by Rav Shizbi, Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "ha'Zachar" (see Tosfos) - that an Androginus does not have the Erech of a Zachar, and from ...
2. ... "ve'*Im* Nekeivah Hi" - that she does not have the Erech of a Nekeivah either (since he neither Vaday one nor Vaday the other).
(c)We know that the author of this Beraisa is Rebbi Yehudah (even though his name is not mentioned) - because it is a Sifra, and the author of a 'S'tam Sifra' is Rebbi Yehudah.
9)
(a)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, following in the footsteps of Rav Shizbi, cites a Mishnah in Parah, where the Tana Kama permits anybody to perform Kidush except for a 'Chashu'. What does he mean by Kidush?
(b)What does Rebbi Yehudah say that supports Rav Shizbi's theory?
(c)Then what makes Milah different in this regard? What does Rebbi Yehudah learn from "Himol Lachem Kol Zachar"?
9)
(a)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, following in the footsteps of Rav Shizbi, cites a Mishnah in Parah, where the Tana Kama permits anybody to perform Kidush - mixing the ashes of the Parah Adumah with water drawn from a spring, except for a 'Chashu'.
(b)Rebbi Yehudah - permits a Katan to perform Kidush, but precludes a woman (since in Rebbi Yehudah's opinion, a Kohenes is Pasul from performing Kidush), thereby supporting Rav Shizbi's theory.
(c)Milah is different in this regard - inasmuch as in the Pasuk "Himol Lachem Kol Zachar", Rebbi Yehudah considers Kol Zachar a Ribuy (to include Androginus).